Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now. The reason that I still use Google maps is that it's fast and well-integrated with my phone, and it has a lot of added features on top of the actual mapping that makes it very useful --- things like location sharing when you're on a longer road trip, creating a notification on your phone to route to an address from your browser, live traffic information, road closures, and business reviews. In terms of the actual data, though, the details available on OSM puts Google's data to shame.
I've been trying to get Google to fix an incorrect path drawn at a state park that I frequent. I've submitted an alternative route twice now, but it's been denied twice with little explanation. The path is a loop, but Google has it missing half of the loop, off by an eighth of a mile or so, and has it drawn where it cuts through private property. In contrast, OSM's data is completely spot on with what my GPS shows.
The park is in a tourist area, and I go to this park often enough that I've actually ran into multiple people visiting who have been standing on the trail with Google Maps open on their phone, thinking they've made a wrong turn.
I've experienced the same thing at GNP in Montana, BWCA in Minnesota/Canada, and all along the Richardson Highway in Alaska. If you're in a rural area or on public land, OSM data is the best available --- even better than what a ranger station would sell you.
Mileage varies depending on where you live. I really like the idea of OSM and have tried it on and off for years but it's abysmal for my city. Post code searches come up wrong and my own home address places the map marker the other side of town from my house. Google Maps has been accurate every time I've used it and I've never had any issues. I can't really trust OSM as an accurate source over Google Maps right now but hopefully it improves as time goes on. I really hope it does. I have tried to use open source solutions a lot in my life but I can't with Maps right now.
It's open for you to make the changes nessessary. It's only as good as it's editors and there isn't that many that can dedicate a lot of time to mapping. Thank you all that does!
This actually does work. I went though a phase of keen mapping and entered detailed information for my local area, especially for things off road. (Triggered by OSM becoming rubbish when the license changed most of the Australian data was removed.) Consequently for the last 6 years OSM is my fist stop for anything to do with my local area. Hopefully others have seen a benefit too.
It's always interesting to see where my OSM data pops up, as I mapped a number of obscure cliff lines in in accessible bush, which are quite a distinctive feature. For example, participating in rogaining or orienteering events and realising that I drew the base map 4 years before!
As others said, it depends. Here in my city (Lübeck) in Germany, OSM runs circles around GM and then leisurely sprints towards the goal. When I was in South Africa (Pretoria) OSM was so out of date that it was unusable, and that's without information there that's always been wrong.
> Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now.
I'm sure that, for whatever product in the world, you can find a subset of people in the world who will swear that such product is, in they experience, the best in the world.
> I'm saying that OSM data is objectively better for the rural parts of the world I've been to.
Which is a subjective factor. "X is objectively better for the categories that I subjectively selected".
Mapping is a subjective topic, simply because there are endless ways to evaluate and compare maps, so attributing any type of weight to any factor is a subjective exercise based on your own personal preferences.
I'll agree that what layers a map ought to show is a subjective matter.
But if you have two maps and they both have a shared subset of layers, you can (for that subset) objectively evaluate which map more accurately represents the real world, eg: has more objects than the other map, and/or has objects marked more accurately.
And what I'm saying is that for the layers that they have in common, I think OSM wins hands down.
The place where you live and the places you happen to visit is a subjective factor. Other people (who visit other places) might have a different overall experience, even if you'd agree with them on any place you both visited.
It is a subjective topic. Each service provides different layers of data, with varying amounts of coverage for each layer. People have opinions on how important each layer is, and what's acceptable in terms of coverage for those layers.
Where I went to college, near Rochester NY, housing data is nearly non-existent in OSM, while Google Maps happily provides it and 3D models of them too. Where I am in Seattle, OSM has parking information while Google Maps does not.
An interesting benefit of Google Maps which (I don’t think?) is available in OSM: different maps for countries with boundary disputes.
Google is basically the de facto map, even as far as many governments are concerned, and so showing localized maps of disputed areas may actually be saving lives.
I'm sure that's true. Google Maps seems to be better or at least more consistent (and better at routing with real-time information obviously) for the things that Google cares about. Which doesn't include rural areas, hiking trails, etc.
I really like Maps.me, however the main issue for using OSM is search. It is quite slow and it does not handle all address formats well.
I think OSM is a great data source and I always try to contribute at least the business opening hours but it deserves a better application layer on top of it.
Just another reply saying "OSM is completely useless where I live".
If I enter my street address into Google Maps, it shows my house. If I enter it into OSM it says "No results found" and can't even figure out what country or city I am in.
Just out of curiosity, have you looked into what data is missing? Is the house (or at least the street) mapped, but missing the street name or the house number (assuming you live somewhere where these are relevant), or is the street completely missing?
OSM doesn't support/understand the street numbering scheme used in my country. If I rewrite my address in the format OSM thinks I should be using, then at least it can find the street I am on. But I'm not going to write addresses differently just for one website...especially when Google Maps understands how we write addresses.
Hi, I'm a long time OSMer, and I'd like to help. OSM has a flexible tagging system, so it could be possible to map your addresses the way they should be. You shouldn't have to shoe-horn things into a schema that doesn't fit you.
Addresses here are written like "220/9 xo viet nghe tinh", which means "go to 220 on Xo Viet Nghe Tinh and turn into the alley there, go to #9 in the alley".
Typing "220/9 xo viet nghe tinh" into OSM results in "No results found". Instead I have to write "hem 220/9 xo viet nghe tinh" for it to find the road; no one writes it that way.
A house address would be "220/9/14 xo viet nghe tinh" meaning "go to 220 on Xo Viet Nghe Tinh and turn into the alley there; go to #9 and turn into the next alley you find there; then go to house #14".
The only way OSM can figure things out is if I write it like "14 hem 220/9 xo viet nghe tinh"
Nominatim processes OSM data, associating items of interest with features like town boundaries that enclose the item, or place markers that are nearby, and then is also a fairly pedantic search interface for that data.
Photon takes the data that Nominatim generates and sticks a more flexible search on top of it.
Checking for/creating an issue for Nominatim describing the address format that doesn't work well would be a useful thing to do, as global support is a goal there.
> You declined to do so, but that's your decision.
This kind of patronizing attitude is unnecessary and silly. The vast majority of users of any software product are only interested in being just that: users. And that's totally okay. No need for passive-aggressive shaming.
After re-reading my own comment, I agree and am sorry. I meant to put the emphasis on "your decision", in order to highlight the freedom argument for OSM. I realise it totally sounded like the emphasis was on "you declined", which makes it a personal attack, and that was never intended nor necessary.
The vast majority who make use of OSM data probably aren't even aware of what Open Street Map is, nor that they can contribute data to such a thing, or of how they could do so.
That’s not an extremely compelling argument. I could host a web-based persistent infinite bitmap canvas where anyone can draw anything they want, and that would still be a much worse map than Google Maps despite the fact that the friction to contribute is as low as it could be.
I once reported an issue with a stadium in my city. I bike in front of it twice a day. The issue was that it was licated on the wrong side of the road.
They said that they checked and it is ok. I asked them how they did this because, well, I actually see the place twice a day. They said that they have ways to check (or smthg like that).
I then sent M their own stree view link and screenshot. Not good enough. So I have up, I do not need the gps to bike there twice a day.
Two years later, suddenly it was approved.
All my corrections are now approved automatically (within an hour or so) so they may have improved.
I also told them to check on OSM where I also updated some information about the surroundings :)
In my limited experience with trying to use OSM for geocoding using Nominatim, it didn't work very well for New Zealand locations at all. It would generally map the GPS coordinates as being in the centre of the block, rather than the actual address.
My problem with OSM, besides the lack of satellite layer, is that it doesn't seem to offer any (detailed) info of landmarks - just the name, sometimes not even that: for example, some churches are just marked with a cross.
If you want to try something really fun, install OSMAnd and download the Wikipedia maps, and then enable them I think in the "layers" option. I don't even think that's OSM data, I think it's geocoded Wikipedia articles. They show up on your map, and you can click on them and read them all offline.
If a church has its own Wikipedia lemma you can tag it. Most cathedrals have those. An image can be linked to, and of course the church website can be tagged as well.
For example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4532022
But in areas with fewer mappers tagging will be limited:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390264609
It all depends on the local mappers adding and validating data.
By using the 'query features' tool on the right (the pointer with the question mark), and then picking the object you want from the list of objects in that area.
Other viewers of OSM data (like smartphone apps) can have different (sometimes easier) means of accessing that data. OSM is a database intended for use with many clients; https://www.openstreetmap.org is just one.
OSM is a very flexible data model. It's possible to add a lot of detail to things. Just because there isn't the data there for everywhere, doesn't mean it can't be added.
OsmAnd! It can download vector maps for countries at a time so you can navigate offline. It's a bit janky sometimes but hey.
CityMapper uses OpenStreetMap data for the cycle and walking route planning (even though the GUI is Google Maps). Best cycling directions you can get, full stop. The algorithm is by CycleStreets, a UK academic start-up out of a university.
Maps.me is more user friendly than OsmAnd and feels more like Google Maps, but needs internet and just feels a bit strange to me. Ad supported but you can turn the ads off in the settings.
I've been trying to get Google to fix an incorrect path drawn at a state park that I frequent. I've submitted an alternative route twice now, but it's been denied twice with little explanation. The path is a loop, but Google has it missing half of the loop, off by an eighth of a mile or so, and has it drawn where it cuts through private property. In contrast, OSM's data is completely spot on with what my GPS shows.
The park is in a tourist area, and I go to this park often enough that I've actually ran into multiple people visiting who have been standing on the trail with Google Maps open on their phone, thinking they've made a wrong turn.
I've experienced the same thing at GNP in Montana, BWCA in Minnesota/Canada, and all along the Richardson Highway in Alaska. If you're in a rural area or on public land, OSM data is the best available --- even better than what a ranger station would sell you.