Gmaps is only better in the POI information even much more now as they created this gamification of adding information with Local Guides that they push heavily.
I guess it's suprising if you've never looked into it, but even back when their only game was Ingress, it was a gamified way of giving them location data that they can sell to help optimize mapping software.
I guess I had my first real wake-up call about how much data is being collected and used was when I got an Android update, and google maps had pre-filled entries for my home and work addresses based on where I spent most of my time at certain parts of the day.
Heck, GMaps is slow and clunky for me, but it's still 10x better than anything else I've ever used. I'm pretty sure it'll be the last GOOG service I manage to get myself off. Is there even a single OSM-based alternative that offers competitive POI search?
I'm guessing most people using gmaps are looking for something like places to eat or landmarks/attractions then use the navigate feature to get there and so it focuses on presenting that information.
Of course Google is going to be more up to date and complete for POIs when these POIs need customers to survive and customers use Google search to find info. Google uses its monopoly in the search market to also become dominant in the geo data market. There's no competing with a hundred million shop owners contributing and updating their own data.
Hiking trails and other more niche things, though. Compare the data quality there :)
I totally agree, and yes please answer these questions, as I'd be interested to know the differences in quality among the respective teams, their methods for evaluating edits and how they perceive each other.
Right now you can use Google Maps on your phone to add a missing place. This place will be approved (usually within an hour) by an Anonymous account bearing the "G" logo. Now while the POI may not display unless you are actively searching for the place or it's specific category, it will still appear on the map. This makes it even easier to crowd the map with useless information. I am sure it's an insult to those who painstakingly edit the map in MM with accurate information, only to be denied be an LE who knows nothing, and then seeing the useless entries like people's houses and spam get added immediately. What is Google's reasoning behind this?
For me the killer Google Maps feature is using it as a search engine. The POI data on OSM has low coverage, is often out-of-date, and lacks reviews, so while it's quite good for (non-car) navigation, it's not very useful at all for finding places meeting certain criteria.
Google, with their map products used on phones, websites and via their web search, is in a far better position to supplant yelp/trip advisor etc, because they have much more data than someone like foursquare; they have visits, searches, route requests worldwide and also the POI data which they are encouraging people to use and enter for them.
I have not had Google Maps on my phone for a couple of years now, but I still think that GMaps is superior. Locations are more maintained, address geocoding is near perfect, it has plentiful useful reviews, and live traffic updates.
As far as location maintenance, this is obviously correlated with usage, and so I hope this will improve over time.
Pretending that things come close to the richness of features in GMaps is ridiculous. Topographical maps for cyclists, amazing transit maps with descriptions of stops, reliable use internationally (google maps is still amazing in places like Indonesia) and a generally good list of hours, restaurants, queries like 'near me'... I think that other products are far and away worse every time that I am linked to them.
Even people on HN who mention trying to use other search engines talk about having to frequently come back to google to find the result that they need. Whether that's us 'learning to Google' or Google being a superior product is up for debate.
reply