Reply to post:

Streetmap loses appeal against Google Maps dominance judgement

find users who cut cat tail

> GM are clearly quite good by objective standards for most use-cases.

I doubt you have ever seen a good map.

A typical non-city-centre area:

GM -- some rough grey and green polygons, streams, a couple of roads. Useless.

OSM -- more or less the same as GM plus vegetation type, protected localities, much more roads and paths, some points of interest. Possibly usable, but it depends. (our national competitor) -- more or less the same as OSM plus contour lines, marked tourist and cycling paths, nature trails, spot heights, rocks, dozens of points of interests, many more small paths, local names, springs, shelters, caves, monuments, every bloody cross beside the road, ... So people actually use it as an outdoor map.

In city centres GM is better, but then again OSM becomes much better there. For example, GM does not bother to show paths in parks, except the largest ones.

Also, GM is slow as hell. Objectively.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019