CoMaps (FOSS Navigation, Organic Maps fork)

[jonah (Jonah Aragon)]

What part of my comment are you referring to? Sources are hyperlinked

[distributedcommunity]

• Community - driven by community and transparency
• Track record - many releases, active community and does not have a questionable history like Organic Maps
• Accrescent - the store is not accepting any apps right now

[anonymous378]

@distributedcommunity

• The name of the company was selected by the community
• The logo was designed and selected by the community

So basically all the community has actually had a hand in, is deciding the name and logo.

@distributedcommunity

From the look of it, this is more community-driven than any other project I have seen.

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.

[IXVG47QZ]

@TheDoc

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?)

I have seen the project leaders talking about it over in Zulip chat. They are still looking into it, nothing definitive to share yet (they would share that publically if there was something definitive).

@TheDoc

It’s been over a month since the last update regarding progress with Accrescent. It seems like their financial situation has improved since then so I wonder if now is a good time for CoMaps to reach back out? Anyone who’s on Codeberg can ask about it under issue #52.

I keep hearing over and over, Accrescent can’t take on new apps right now. When they can I’m sure we’ll be on it.

@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.

[IXVG47QZ]

@bsd

i installed it yesterday. but i live in the middle of nowhere, small rural towns. It has no address data, so the only way i can drive with it as a gps is if i pin point on a map, or knows the grid coordinates.

That is a limitation from being an app using OpenStreetMap data. If addresses aren’t on OSM, they won’t be in CoMaps. (Although in the US the app uses TIGER data too to help offset this lack of data.) On the flip side, anyone can add them to OSM. If you want to improve the OSM data (for yourself and everyone else too), please create an account on openstreetmap.org!

[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.

Would be interesting to see the bar that is set by other apps which are already recommended by PrivacyGuides.

[RevealedInWords]

I have experimented with CoMaps (as well as Organic Maps in the past) and I find it too lacking to use on a regular basis.

Without real-time traffic data (something my 10 year old Garmin has), red light cameras, speed cameras, temporary road closures, etc, I feel at a loss.

Also, I live in a major metropolitan area of the US and the POI function is sorely lacking. For example, if I search for coffee in tge area it finds a frozen yogurt shop nearby but doesn’t list a single Dunkin Donuts, which are scattered all around the area. Not a super big deal as I can search for POIs on Google Maps webpage, but still inconvenient… Especially when trying to find a particular POI to add as a stop along a current navigation route.

I wish all the best for the project, but as it currently stands it will be challenging for me to use over Magic Earth or my old school Garmin.

[Pragmatic]

If there’s a lack of POIs where you live, then contribute, there are lots of tools for doing that, we need you.

What’s more, I think that Privacy Guides should create a sub-category for applications that allow you to contribute to OSM, I don’t know what you think?

[RevealedInWords]

Is there a way to add red light and speed cameras to OSM?

What would be the purpose of adding an OSM subcategory to PG?

[OldGuy]

@RevealedInWords

Is there a way to add red light and speed cameras to OSM?

Yes. There are tagging conventions for adding traffic lights and speed cameras to OSM. CoMaps, Organic Maps and OsmAnd all can show the traffic lights on their display. For CoMaps and Organic Maps you have to zoom way in to see them.

I don’t use any of them very much for navigation so am unsure if they show them well when doing driving directions nor if they consider their impact on travel times when computing routes.

There are no speed cameras in my area, but I read posts in OSM forums from people who live in areas that have them and it is my understanding that OSM supports them and at least some OSM based navigation apps use that data.

[TheDoc]

@IXVG47QZ

I keep hearing over and over, Accrescent can’t take on new apps right now. When they can I’m sure we’ll be on it.

I only mention it because according to Accrescent’s instructions, CoMaps must reach back out to Accrescent (at an unspecified point in the future) before they can be included in their app store. I figured Accrescent’s recent financial success indicated some time soon would be a good time to re-try, so anyone who’s on Codeberg might want to mention this news under issue #52.

[TheDoc]

@jonah

That being said, after catching up on this thread again it does seem like @phnx has a good case against CoMaps which I am still leaning towards agreeing with even after reading the subsequent replies, personally.

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.

[IXVG47QZ]

@OldGuy

I don’t use any of them very much for navigation so am unsure if they show them well when doing driving directions nor if they consider their impact on travel times when computing routes.

CoMaps has recently improved routing involving traffic lights. Upcoming traffic lights are shown while routing, but hopefully they will become more visible in future versions.

If anyone has more questions about CoMaps specifically, please join one of the communities listed on the CoMaps website. As a guest here I don’t want to wear out my welcome by answering off topic questions. Thanks!

[anonymous417]

@phnx

Maybe I’m missing something, but CoMaps doesn’t appear to be meaningfully community-driven either, and just because you say it and put Co in your name doesn’t make it true

@TheDoc

As for @phnx’s skepticism of whether CoMaps is truly community- driven, I think @IXVG47QZ’s recent reply addressed it pretty well.

@IXVG47QZ

@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.

@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.

Since that’s the case, I tend to agree with @jonah

@jonah

it does seem like @phnx has a good case against CoMaps

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here…

---

I am also not sure why there is a focus on this aspect in particular anyway. It seems to me, if the tool meets the requirements of the category it really doesn’t matter if some people find it more or less “community-driven” then others. Unless there is a concern that this could be deceptive marketing but that feels like a stretch.

[nathanael]

@phnx has no good case against CoMaps. the track record of Organic Maps is exactly the reason why it should be removed from PG

but this post is about adding CoMaps to PG and i can’t believe we are talking about beeing community-driven or not beeing listed on accrescent as valid points for not listing CoMaps

CoMaps has the track record of Organic Maps — it is a fork, not a new project

[anonymous417]

@nathanael

the track record of Organic Maps is exactly the reason why it should be removed from PG

@nathanael

CoMaps has the track record of Organic Maps

I think you should clarify this… Unless you do not wan’t CoMaps listed.

[nathanael]

@anonymous417

I think you should clarify this… Unless you do not wan’t CoMaps listed.

@nathanael

it is a fork, not a new project

[Post can’t be empty]

[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.

@anonymous417

I am also not sure why there is a focus on this aspect in particular anyway. It seems to me, if the tool meets the requirements of the category it really doesn’t matter if some people find it more or less “community-driven” then others. Unless there is a concern that this could be deceptive marketing but that feels like a stretch.

I partly agree, that’s why I’m trying to bring it back to more relevant and objective things like adherence to the Privacy Guides criteria, which was one of my main reasons for suggesting CoMaps in the first place.

[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

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.

---

@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.

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

[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.