(Though, I should mention that twice in the last year I've had Organic Maps become hopelessly confused about where I was, and where I should go. Both times, it had gotten a good GPS location, but then got confused while being out for an extended period of time, like maybe it was dead-reckoning only after that initial lock.)
Not had any GPS problems other than that time I was in an area where it was being jammed. Bloody Russians.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/organic-maps-open-lett...
Short story: forget Organic Maps, use successor CoMaps or competitor OsmAnd.
Do you have pointers to information about the governance and legitimacy of CoMaps?
(I see a mention that it's non-profit, but no statement about what kind of non-profit, not even on the donate page where that info is customary and relevant for US tax reasons. Also, I see no mention of who's who, nor how they operate.)
The closest I find is this:
https://www.comaps.app/support/what-is-the-comaps-history/
> As a result of the issues not being resolved, in April 2025, the community of former Organic Maps contributors created the CoMaps project, based on the Organic Maps open-source code.
If what that sounds like is true (that it does represent the community of contributors), it still will be important to have safeguards against someone taking over the project.
Or, if what that sounds like isn't true, that could be bad.
One matter that will have to be resolved with governance (if it hasn't already), is that there's what looks like an allegation that the CoMaps project is already tainted with code to which is expressly doesn't have license:
https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/pulls/1039#issuecomment-6...
A concern is that a funded commercial competitor could bankrupt a less-funded volunteer project with lawyer fees just arguing the merits of that.
It appears Alex is angry about the fork and doing anything possible to spread negativity.
The fork also took the new website design that was developed for Organic Maps even before the Organic Maps website was updated.
Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.
It shows that you, biodranik, removed the MIT licence from the repo with a commit saying "No MIT yet, sorry". It says that the code had been licenced as MIT since 2021. It is not clear if you own the copyright to all the contributions since 2021, and therefore it is not clear if you are legally allowed to remove the MIT licence.
It also says that the fork was made from the repo in the state it was when you removed the MIT licence. Therefore it is a fork of an MIT project by someone who had legal access to the MIT-licenced code: it's legal.
> Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.
You don't say :-).
I was not entirely sure about the CoMaps vs Organic Maps situation, but this very comment of yours clearly favours CoMaps IMO. Or did I misunderstand something?
[1]: https://github.com/orgs/organicmaps/discussions/9837
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20250815050441/https://github.co...
This is temporary though and a permanent nonprofit home is a top priority.
https://github.com/orgs/organicmaps/discussions/9837
https://web.archive.org/web/20250815050441/https://github.co...
In the discussion you link, biodranik tries to say that it was illegal for those with access to the repo to dispose of the open-source code because that open-source code had not be published. I don't think this is right:
Open-source does not mean at all that the code has to be public. It can be private to a community. But whoever has access to that code is allowed, under the open-source licence, to dispose of it under the terms of the licence. My understanding is that this is what happened with the fork of Organic Maps. And it is pretty clearly explained in the codeberg discussion you linked.
> an allegation that the CoMaps project is already tainted with code to which is expressly doesn't have license
I don't think it says that CoMaps doesn't have the licence. It says that whoever forked the codebase did not have permission by some of the founders of Organic Maps. That's very different: the licence doesn't say that you must ask permission to the founders; it says that the code can be used under the terms of the licence. A fork part of those terms.
I wonder if there was some issue with the map data in the area you were driving in that led to the issues you experienced. I've used OSMand in Belize, Mexico, California, Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine and had a good experience, especially with the offline maps.
That's an OpenStreetMap bug, the intersection likely isn't marked as not allowing turns. If you put a note (OSMAnd calls them OSM Notes) on the map someone will fix it when they can.
Even Google is relying on user submissions to keep its stuff accurate these days, they just have money to pay editors and reviewers.
Then last week I used it for navigation (on a phone with no SIM card).
Absolutely. Terrible.
Worst navigation app I've seen. Told me to make a turn at an intersection that did not allow turns. Then at another intersection, it told me to "Turn left", but the display clearly showed it going straight. I'm guessing that the straight road probably is angled 1 degree or something at the intersection and the app was viewing that as a turn.