CoMaps (FOSS Navigation, Organic Maps fork)

[TheDoc]

You’re taking a few words (taken from several paragraphs) out of context to construct a twisted version of what we’re saying. I have no idea how you could misunderstand what was said so grossly but I’ll try to explain once more simply by quoting the context you cut out.

Misrepresentation part 1:

@anonymous417

It seems like originally you were arguing there was no reason to vet the reputation of CoMaps since its a fork of Organic Maps

@TheDoc

I think it’d be overkill and counterproductive for us to wait an extended period of time for them to re-prove a reputation they’ve already earned by being Organic Maps

Excluded context part 1:

@TheDoc

@shadowwwind

…
If ironfox does not get added because it’s to new, neither should comaps imo

…
Unlike a browser, there shouldn’t be any major security concerns. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be any waiting period, only that I think it’d be safe to get away with a much shorter waiting period than if we were recommending a browser or OS.

@TheDoc

As far as I can tell, there are largely only positives of switching from Organic Maps to CoMaps. I think we mainly have 2 items to follow-up on:

1. It seems like it’s a matter of when (not if) CoMaps will be recommended in place of Organic Maps. Should we wait for the project to reach a certain age? As discussed, we probably shouldn’t need to wait for the project to be 1+ years old before recommending it, but if not a year, how old should it be? Alternatively, we can pick a concrete step such as waiting til the formation of a legal entity is complete. (Perhaps @CoMaps or @IXVG47QZ have some insight as to when that may happen?)

@TheDoc

@anonymous378

I don’t think its a matter of putting a finite time on it. The track record hasn’t changed much in a month. It’s going to take time to build a resume.

I guess what I meant is regardless of how we calculate it, their reputation or maturity doesn’t need to be nearly as well-proven as browsers for example. I think it’d be overkill and counterproductive for us to wait an extended period of time for them to re-prove a reputation they’ve already earned by being Organic Maps contributors who jumped ship over to an objectively more open and transparent alternative that has been going strong for months ever since its inception.

---

Misrepresentation part 2:

@anonymous417

but now it seems as the thread has progressed people don’t have that high of an opinion on Organic Maps

@TheDoc

Organic Maps is a secretive dictatorship.

@IXVG47QZ

Organic Maps is a mess. They don’t care about the community

Which again makes me think @phnx may have had a point and that @anonymous378 was correct in saying, process wise, it makes sense to wait on this project.

Excluded context part 2:

@TheDoc

Why I think this tool should be added

In April 2025 community contributors to Organic Maps published an open letter to Organic Maps shareholders seeking to address various concerns about the project, including undemocratic (for-profit?) governance, a lack of decision making and financial transparency, and the supposed needless inclusion of (or dependence on) proprietary software.

The majority of shareholders failed to address community concerns and thus CoMaps was born as a truly open-source and non-profit community-developed fork of Organic Maps. It seems CoMaps is becoming the preferred mobile navigation app in the community as awareness spreads.

@TheDoc

Organic Maps is not community-driven like many open source projects are. If you read the original post, you’ll see there was an open letter with 276 signatures asking for some pretty basic changes you’d expect from an open source project and the issues were not addressed. So the community created CoMaps to fix the issues themselves.

CoMaps is ran like a transparent community-driven open source project whereas Organic Maps is a secretive dictatorship. No one has been able to give an example of how CoMaps could be any more community-driven than it already is because there isn’t anything left to do that isn’t already in the works. Anyone scoffing at it hasn’t been able to explain what should be different or why it isn’t meaningfully better than Organic Maps.

---

Misrepresentation part 3:

@anonymous417

@TheDoc

They did not concede that there’s nothing special about CoMaps in comparison to Organic Maps.

@IXVG47QZ

Okay, this is true.

@IXVG47QZ

CoMaps isn’t claiming to be this super ultra project that’s better than any other FLOSS project out there.

Seems like he did…Maybe @IXVG47QZ will clarify for us.

Excluded context part 3:

@IXVG47QZ

@anonymous378

By actually having the community be involved in real decisions instead of silly votes. Which was what was originally mentioned as their issue with this claim of being community driven. So far, it seems, most of the “community driven” aspect is just paperwork.

I feel this critique isn’t fair. The community is involved. Votes are one thing that is special about CoMaps, that’s why everyone mentions it. But beyond that, it’s an open source app:

• Anyone can raise an issue on Codeberg.
• Anyone can jump in and create a pull request on Codeberg.
• As already mentioned, anyone who wants to actively contribute can join the Zulip chat where all the project leaders are.

I honestly don’t know what’s left to critique. How could CoMaps be more community focused, besides the obvious of creating a not for profit (which is a big job and still in the works)?

@anonymous378

Outside of that, it is basically the same amount of “community-driven” as any other open source project with contributors. If people are going to use “community-driven” as some big selling point, there should be more to it then just having picked a name and logo.

Okay, this is true. Here’s the thing, CoMaps isn’t claiming to be this super ultra project that’s better than any other FLOSS project out there. Not sure where that idea came from. Organic Maps is a mess. They don’t care about the community, so of course when an open source fork came about to fix this, they chose to highlight the community aspect of the project. Is it fair to criticize a FLOSS project on the basis that it is run like every other FLOSS project?

By the way, the name was also chosen by the community too ( #34 - Vote: Project Name - comaps/Governance - Codeberg.org ). Using a name, chosen by the community, as a way to besmerch the project as not overly community focused is, well, a strange opinion, I’ll just say that.

@distributedcommunity

Running the project equivalent to other open-source projects is already a great community approach.

Open-source projects usually have yearly reports with groupings for amounts without much detail. Also, they have boards who make decisions and project directions in their meetings rather than have open discussions on decisions together with contributors.

CoMaps takes community to the next level by having financials completely open to the details of individual transactions, and project decisions are open for everyone, decisions are not limited to just features discussions.

@TheDoc

@anonymous417

@TheDoc I find this a bit confusing. From what I can tell @IXVG47QZ basically concedes that @phnx original point and, what @anonymous378 were arguing was true. There is nothing particularly special about CoMaps being “community-driven” outside of how they market it.

They did not concede that there’s nothing special about CoMaps in comparison to Organic Maps. Organic Maps is not community-driven like many open source projects are. If you read the original post, you’ll see there was an open letter with 276 signatures asking for some pretty basic changes you’d expect from an open source project and the issues were not addressed. So the community created CoMaps to fix the issues themselves.

CoMaps is ran like a transparent community-driven open source project whereas Organic Maps is a secretive dictatorship. No one has been able to give an example of how CoMaps could be any more community-driven than it already is because there isn’t anything left to do that isn’t already in the works. Anyone scoffing at it hasn’t been able to explain what should be different or why it isn’t meaningfully better than Organic Maps.

---

My new replies:

@anonymous417

Maybe @IXVG47QZ will clarify for us.

There’s no need for clarification, just read the discussion that has already taken place in the correct order and without cherry-picking quotes. I made it super easy by taking the time to find and quote the most relevant parts for you, so you’re welcome. For a more proper understanding you should just read the whole thread if you’re still confused.

@anonymous417

TBH I find the whole category a bit silly. Use a physical map if you want privacy.

It’s not as convenient or widely available anymore. If we could have reasonably private map and navigation apps we should recommend it, otherwise people will stick with Google Maps rather than turn to paper.