Better or cheaper?
Did Foursquare use OSM because it's data was better than Google's - or because it was free for commercial use?
Back in 2012, location-based social network Foursquare decided spatial data from the OpenStreetMap (OSM) project was better than the comparable data from Google. Now the crowdsourced mapping project can point to another success: its first inclusion in a commercial satellite navigation app. That app is Telenav's Scout for iOS, …
"Google crowd-sources map data too, in a sense. I've personally submitted a correction, ..."
Ditto Nokia's "Here". Although I have yet to see my correction taken into consideration. It has become my test case for map updating: Many maps have (or used to have) a short alley marked at the end of the street where I live, but it does not actually exist (probably it was planned at some point, so it appears in some fashion in official city mapping data). I got it removed from "OpenStreetMap". "Google" shows it with dotted outline and name, apparently still thinking it might come into existence. "Here" shows it solidly, despite my fixing request.
OSM is better than Google too. I've just quickly compared Google Maps and Openstreetmap for the area where my office is. Google Maps has the roads and a couple of buildings highlighted, but it looks pretty sparse. OSM, on the other hand, is bursting at the seams with data.
I also noticed that Google Maps has finally added on a bridge that I use to cross a river. The bridge has only been there for several hundred years. Nice of Google to keep up with modern developments...
"OSMAnd is fine..."
...or, if you don't feel like either paying up or getting limited to 10 map updates total, you could also use the genuinely free-to-use-with-OSM-maps version of MapFactor Navigator, which is basically indistinguishable from any common satnav feature-wise, and can easily store offline most of Europe.