Security through obscurity has different merits depending on the context.

In software, it is a really bad idea to hope that your code is so obscure that no attacker will find a security flaw.

IRL, on the other hand, unknown positions of assets are often critical (the uncertainty whether you know about all the adversary's nuclear silos being a huge part of the nuclear deterrence policy). There is just so much resources you can throw at discovering underground pipelines.

Silos are hard to move; secret nuclear launch locations are provided by SSBNs.

This is completely incorrect. Things can be made so difficult that they become impractical by forcing the bad actor to do a lot of grunt work.

Not finding significant pipelines. That's pretty easy if you want to do it.

In some sense, that's what cryptography is.

People like vandals and thieves and vagrants can be deterred by obscurity. There are lots of things which enjoy a modicum of peace and non disturbance because of obscurity. Maintenance sheds, utility rooms, etc.

Security through obscurity is a useful and valid part of a security process, but only if it's one of many parts of the process.

Do they put Fylingdales on maps yet? Though of course it's been well known for decades :)

I did a quick check and RAF Fylingdales is easy to find on Apple and Google maps. However, my OS Maps app won't find it even though I can find other 'normal' RAF bases (e.g. RAF Lossiemouth).

I should be surprised that OS still don't list it, but I think it's almost quaint these days. :)

Well, for doing anything outdoors I'd take OS 1:25000 maps over Google or Apple maps any day (both the app and backup paper versions).

Me too. I meant the continued absence of a huge base and radomes from the OS maps was the quaint relic, expressed poorly. :)