The Accrescent thing is really a non-issue. That app store is in alpha, not recommended by Privacy Guides, and not accepting new apps yet. Availability on Accrescent isn’t listed anywhere in the criteria including the best-case criteria. CoMaps is trying to distribute their app on Accrescent but are waiting for Accrescent to accept new apps.
On the other hand, Organic Maps has proprietary software which disqualifies it from meeting the open source best-case criteria Privacy Guides set out. While some in that thread didn’t view it as a major issue since the code is server-side, I’d argue they’d be failing to realize that proprietary SaaS (which an “open source” app depends on) simply doesn’t provide the users with the degree of freedom and transparency we should expect of a project labelling itself open source. I wouldn’t call all source-available or open-core projects “open source” and I think that same standard applies here. I’d suggest reading the FSF’s critique of SaaSS as it can apply to this issue as well.
As far as I can tell CoMaps is truly open source and thus properly fulfills that criterion at no cost to user experience and without any real risk since CoMaps is being maintained by most of the same developers who come from the already recommended Organic Maps project. This is in addition to receiving plenty of praise and financial support from the FOSS community who largely/unanimously prefer CoMaps and would not allow the project to fail. As for @phnx’s skepticism of whether CoMaps is truly community- driven, I think @IXVG47QZ’s recent reply addressed it pretty well.