# Here WeGo (Navigation) **URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/here-wego-navigation/23752 **Category:** Tool Suggestions **Created:** 2025-01-05T12:04:49Z **Posts:** 53 ## Post 1 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-05T12:04:49Z ### Check this box to affirm you have no conflict of interest. on ### Website > **[HERE WeGo](https://wego.here.com/)** > > HERE WeGo ### Short description Spliting from the discussion on adding [Add Navigation (GPS) tools](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/add-navigation-gps-tools/13669) ### Why I think this tool should be added It seems to me that we should have a look at this app seperately from the dicussion on adding the category itself. Like dicussions already exist for the other options ### Section on Privacy Guides Navigation --- ## Post 2 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-05T12:07:04Z See also [Add Navigation (GPS) tools - #17 by Regime6045](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/add-navigation-gps-tools/13669/17) --- ## Post 3 by @anon80779245 — 2024-12-05T11:41:26Z HERE in 2020 seemed to do some targeted advertising per WIRED, see > **[The Best Privacy-Friendly Alternatives to Google Maps](https://www.wired.com/story/the-best-privacy-friendly-alternatives-to-google-maps/)** > > Google Maps is arguably the easiest mapping service to use, but that doesn't mean it's the most secure. Also, it is good to know that they are [owned by a consortium of 3 car company](https://venturebeat.com/business/why-3-car-giants-just-bought-nokias-mapping-division-for-3b/). On the one hand, I see this as a clear incentive for not doing shady stuff as they don’t need to for money. On the other hand, car companies now have a bad reputation for privacy. It is based in the Netherlands, so it will most likely follow GDPR. --- ## Post 4 by @anon80779245 — 2024-12-05T11:46:17Z Setup process for HERE: ![Screenshot_20241205-123430~2](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/b/bda790d7033314f262253b993fe2ab3ec82789e1.png) ![Screenshot_20241205-123424~2](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/5/5d8bada5a12c6bf070a2b154e48971d7b19684a6.png) ![Screenshot_20241205-123436~2](//forum-uploads.privacyguidesusercontent.com/original/2X/d/d0024dca54fc784ac6adf41f144af8f13c52169e.png) --- ## Post 5 by @598tm — 2024-12-29T18:45:08Z I wanted to contribute my grain of salt about Here WeGo. First of all, thank you very much for your work at Privacy Guides. It’s my go-to resource for information on more private tools, so kudos to you all for the effort you put in. Now, about Here Technologies. One of the companies I consult for on data protection issues started using one of their solutions (Asset Tracking) about a year ago. This meant I was in charge of performing some due diligence on Here’s GDPR compliance, including their Asset Tracking product. This was my first time reading about Here Technologies’ solutions, and I didn’t even know about their WeGo app until then. The company I was consulting for, being EU-based and highly privacy-sensitive due to the nature of the goods they handle, was ultimately very impressed with Here’s approach to data protection. **Here’s Approach to Data Protection** @Regime6045 has already provided an excellent overview of Here Technologies’ Privacy Notice, so I don’t have much to add on that front. From my experience, Here Technologies’ Privacy Notice looked far superior to those of many similar services. Privacy seems to be a priority for them, and they extensively apply data minimisation and pseudonymisation measures in line with the GDPR, which is great to see. Now, one aspect worth mentioning is that Here Technologies has achieved ISO 27701 certification. This is a step in the right direction as it integrates privacy considerations into their ISMS (not just security). In contrast, for example Google Maps doesn’t have this certification. In fact, they didn’t have it when the company I was assisting was evaluating solutions, and after a recent check, they still don’t. Frankly, I doubt Google Maps could obtain ISO 27701 certification due to their extensive handling of sensitive location data for behavioural advertising. ISO 27701 emphasizes transparency in data handling, also requiring clear communication about how data is collected, processed, and shared. For Google Maps, meeting these standards would require significant revisions to their privacy practices… something highly unlikely. In contrast, Here Technologies has ISO 27701 certification, which I found reassuring. That said, I’m not claiming Here WeGo is perfect. It’s not. However, after reviewing their extensive documentation, including ISO 27701 materials, I felt confident enough to use the app for my personal purposes. Unfortunately, you’ll have to take my word for it because their ISO 27701 documentation is not publicly accessible without an NDA. **My Personal Experience with Here WeGo** Before hearing about Here Technologies, I mainly relied on OsmAnd (for biking, walking, etc.) and Google Maps (for public transport and real-time navigation with traffic). As a Windows and Android user, I didn’t think there was a viable alternative to Google Maps. But after discovering Here WeGo, I decided to give it a try and was pleasantly surprised. I live in an EU city, and Here WeGo works perfectly for public transport and general traffic. After a couple of weeks using both Google Maps and Here WeGo, I decided to switch entirely to Here WeGo and haven’t looked back. I still use OsmAnd for hiking since Here WeGo can’t compete in that area, so my current setup is Here WeGo + OsmAnd, which I think is the perfect combination for privacy and usability (at least in Europe). That said, in terms of usability, Here WeGo is still not flawless. Google Maps is ahead in some respects. For instance, Here WeGo works great in my city, with accurate public transport information and even up-to-date restaurant listings. However, when I travelled outside Europe (to Egypt and Southeast Asia) this past year, Here WeGo’s performance was disappointing. It was better than OsmAnd for traffic, but nowhere near as reliable as Google Maps. Unfortunately, I had to rely on Google Maps during those trips, though I mitigated some privacy concerns by using it on a separate profile on GrapheneOS. **Conclusion** I’d love to see Here WeGo mentioned in Privacy Guides; not necessarily as the most private or transparent option (it’s not open source, after all), but as a generally privacy-friendly app with reliable real-time traffic data. To mitigate any potential risks, I’d recommend using the app without creating an account, as it’s not required. Now, if you do decide to create an account for some reason, consider using fake data. --- ## Post 6 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-02T19:10:11Z > [@598tm](#): > > ere Technologies has achieved ISO 27701 certification. What does this entails? > [@598tm](#): > > (Asset Tracking) Could you explain more? --- ## Post 7 by @598tm — 2025-01-03T09:37:15Z Well, ISO 27701 is an extension of ISO 27001, which is probably the gold standard when it comes to security certifications. ISO 27701 builds upon the security framework of the former certification and aims to demonstrate compliance with privacy and data protection practices. It’s an expensive certification to achieve, involving an extensive audit by a certification body like Bureau Veritas. They check a series of operational controls related to privacy, from data processing activities to personnel training and adherence to laws and regulations. Before even going for this audit, companies usually engage one of the big four (Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG) for consulting and advisory services to prepare, which is, of course, very costly and takes considerable time and effort. Once a company secures ISO 27701, it’s a strong indicator of compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. To maintain this certification, regular external audits are required. In my line of work (checking businesses for GDPR compliance), seeing an ISO 27701 certification (which is quite rare) makes my job significantly easier. To me, having this certification is already a great relief in terms of privacy considerations. However, it’s a very strong indicator, not a bulletproof guarantee. Anyone conducting a compliance check on an ISO 27701 certified business should still review the ISO Report. The nice thing about this certification is that a compliance check, which might usually take weeks, can often be completed in just a few hours… usually, the time it takes to read the ISO Report, which is great! You can find proof of their certificate here: [ISO Certificate Directory | Schellman](https://www.schellman.com/certificate-directory?certificateNumber=1972237-5) About Asset Tracking, this was essentially what the company I was helping was looking for: [HERE Asset Tracking | Real-Time Asset Visibility | Solutions | HERE](https://www.here.com/solutions/asset-tracking). Unfortunately I can’t offer more specific details as I’m still bound by confidentiality obligations. --- ## Post 8 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-03T21:12:24Z > [@598tm](#): > > Well, ISO 27701 is an extension of ISO 27001, which is probably the gold standard when it comes to security certifications. ISO 27701 builds upon the security framework of the former certification and aims to demonstrate compliance with privacy and data protection practices. It’s an expensive certification to achieve, involving an extensive audit by a certification body like Bureau Veritas. They check a series of operational controls related to privacy, from data processing activities to personnel training and adherence to laws and regulations. Okay this looks great. I am still not sure what criterias we should settle on. Just to be clear, what advantages does Here WE GO has open over Organic Maps and OSMAND~ respectively --- ## Post 9 by @Regime6045 — 2025-01-04T15:02:16Z Mainly live traffic info, and for some countries also better map material --- ## Post 10 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-04T18:48:23Z Does this include better nav recommendation or is it just for info? --- ## Post 11 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-04T23:16:45Z > [@598tm](#): > > Unfortunately, you’ll have to take my word for it because their ISO 27701 documentation is not publicly accessible without an NDA sounds a hack alot like security by obscurity. Sorry but this makes not much sense to me. Also i really want to emphasize that audits are not some “golden standard”. It is really the bare minimum usually although I like to see that they did that, you shouldn’t overvalue it. --- ## Post 12 by @598tm — 2025-01-05T10:53:27Z Requiring an NDA for ISO 27701 reports isn’t security by obscurity. It’s simply a practical decision. For-profit businesses with closed-source code often use proprietary processes, tools, or methodologies to ensure security and privacy. Naturally, they don’t want to reveal these details publicly, as doing so could expose sensitive business information to competitors or even bad actors. ISO reports (like 27001 and 27701) are also highly technical and tailored to the specific risks and needs of the company. Sharing them openly could lead to misunderstandings by non-specialists, creating unnecessary concerns or confusion. On top of that, these reports might contain sensitive details about employees, customers, or partners, which could violate privacy laws or expose private information. Saying this is security by obscurity is simply not correct. A company that subjects itself to these audits and is willing to share the reports (even under an NDA) shows it’s not relying on secrecy. In fact, it’s the opposite. They’re demonstrating transparency by undergoing an independent review of their practices. As for audits being the “bare minimum,” that depends on the type of audit. Some companies rely only on internal or non-standardised audits, which are often more about PR than real security. ISO 27001 and 27701, on the other hand, are internationally recognised as the gold standard for security and privacy. Achieving these certifications takes serious effort and covers nearly every aspect of an organisation’s practices. Sure, no audit is perfect, but these are far from just the bare minimum. --- ## Post 13 by @598tm — 2025-01-05T11:08:20Z That said, I’m not here to defend closed-source businesses. I’d love to see more transparency, which is why I’m a strong supporter of prioritising the use of fully open-source software (especially when it’s powered entirely by the community). However, I recognise that not everyone will use open-source software, and there isn’t always a perfect open-source solution for every use case. For this reason, I believe closed-source businesses should go the extra mile to ensure privacy and security through internationally recognised audits like ISO 27001 and 27701. The more transparent a company is (even if it’s closed-source) the more trust it earns from its customers. As much as I wish everyone would rely solely on open-source, community-driven software, that’s just not realistic. Closed-source businesses will continue to exist, and it’s important to encourage them to adopt strong standards for privacy and security to build trust and accountability. --- ## Post 14 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-05T12:20:55Z Well yeah lets just agree to disagree on ISO audit value. When doing software due diligence I never settle for companies that believe that ISO proofs they are doing everything right. In my eyes it is a good that those standards are there but it really is a minimum and high-over of what one should do to be in control. It doesn’t tell me that they actually are. It is a valueable framework but you need to see the scope and details under it to actually know the value of an “approved” stamp. Risk assesements are often consisting of massive gabs and flaws. People wrongly assume full legal compliance with such certifications. Just saying you have passed the audit tells me nothing more than just fullfilling some mimimum standards that all companies really should (not that all do). --- ## Post 15 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-05T12:25:14Z > [@anon80779245](#): > > It is based in the Netherlands, so it will most likely follow GDPR. I wouldnt be so sure of that tbh. The rest was good info. But i would argue that unfortunately many European companies are not being compliant with GDPR. General privacy practises are mostly better in the EU but it definitely is not a garantee. --- ## Post 16 by @anon80779245 — 2025-01-05T18:19:17Z > [@ph00lt0](#): > > I wouldnt be so sure of that tbh. The rest was good info. But i would argue that unfortunately many European companies are not being compliant with GDPR. > > General privacy practises are mostly better in the EU but it definitely is not a garantee. I think there is more awareness and respect of privacy in EU companies because of GDPR. But as you said, not a guarantee. --- ## Post 17 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-05T19:21:12Z While i dont really like that HERE has their Facebook login shit it doesnt seem to connect to Facebook otherwise. The opt-in buttons are all dark patterns; deceptive button colours (same as seen in the report of EDPB on cookiebanners here: [https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/edpb\_20230118\_report\_cookie\_banner\_taskforce\_en.pdf](https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/edpb_20230118_report_cookie_banner_taskforce_en.pdf)) as seem in the screenshots of @anon80779245. It is not quite what the GDPR stipulates. It makes it hard for me to recommend using such. Is it holestically really any better than using Google Maps? Google does no longer have such dark patterns, although it took some fights. I am not going to argue for including Google, (lol), but they do show you very transparently what data they have on you and allow you to delete the history, even automated. I am just wondering besides anti monopolistic factors if it is actually bringing you more privacy at all. Anyway I am up for the test I will try using it and compare it just to also test the usability for some time. I am currently still using Google Maps as I also find that Organic Maps just isn’t it for public transport and lacking live traffic. I do use Organic Maps for keeping locations and navigation when i require more privacy. --- ## Post 18 by @Tech-Trooper — 2025-01-05T21:18:16Z I don’t know how we can check the certifications except for going to each company one by one, but I am sure all Meta, Google, Microsoft and many other privacy invasive companies have ISO certificates at the highest level. Typically there is a granularity within those such as Soc-1 or soc2. --- ## Post 19 by @ph00lt0 — 2025-01-05T21:49:44Z Google actually is known to not offer much assurances making it hard to be complaint with them. Also the reason authorities fined schools who used Google before and only than google changed things([Google’s use of student data could effectively ban Chromebooks from Denmark schools | The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065332/denmark-google-student-data-collection-privacy)). Microsoft is better at this but you really need to fight for it making small organizations not being able to get the same privacy. --- ## Post 20 by @phnx — 2025-01-05T21:53:08Z They have ISO 27001 certification for various products, just not the consumer facing ones. [ISO 27001 Certification - Analytics Help](https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/3407084?hl=en) --- ## Post 21 by @anon55464882 — 2025-01-05T23:32:28Z ISO 27701 certification doesn’t guarantee a company is privacy-friendly. It only certifies their processes for managing privacy data ([PIMS](https://www.isms.online/privacy-information-management-system-pims/)), not how they actually treat your privacy. Many companies with questionable privacy practices, like Alibaba, Microsoft, NordVPN, Oracle, Tencent, and Tinder, are ISO 27701 certified. Having a certified system doesn’t prevent bad privacy practices. Also, ISO 27701 (and ISO 27001) aren’t proof of GDPR compliance. When assesing Here WeGo’s privacy policy, it doesn’t seem to offer any significant privacy advantage over something like Google Maps or Bing Maps. --- ## Post 22 by @Regime6045 — 2025-01-07T13:34:58Z > [@anon55464882](#): > > When assesing Here WeGo’s privacy policy, it doesn’t seem to offer any significant privacy advantage over something like Google Maps or Bing Maps. Are you sure? Just compare the Play Store summaries: - [Google Maps](https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.google.android.apps.maps&hl=en&gl=US) → collects pretty much anything it can, though some things are optional, and for many things, including your location, one of the purposes given is “advertising or marketing” - [HERE](https://play.google.com/store/apps/datasafety?id=com.here.app.maps&hl=en&gl=US) → everything is optional and the only thing used for “advertising or marketing” is the email address if you sign up for an account (which you shouldn’t and don’t need to); location data is only used for “app functionality” i.e. traffic info --- ## Post 23 by @SpunkyEatsYou — 2025-01-07T15:01:18Z If this is true then I wonder where the catch is --- ## Post 24 by @Regime6045 — 2025-01-07T15:45:35Z From Wiki: > Here captures location content such as road networks, buildings, parks and traffic patterns. It then sells or licenses that mapping content, along with map related navigation and location services to other businesses such as [Alpine Electronics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Electronics), [Garmin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garmin), [BMW](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW), [Oracle Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_Corporation) and [Amazon.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com). This third-party licensing constitutes the core of the firm’s business.[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Technologies#cite_note-:0-1) In addition, Here provides platform services to smartphones through [Here WeGo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_WeGo) app.[[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Technologies#cite_note-Nokia_runs_on_1-2)[[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Technologies#cite_note-3) It provides location services through its HERE applications, and also for [GIS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIS) and government clients and other providers, such as [Microsoft Bing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bing) (from 2012 through 2020), [Meta Platforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_Platforms), [Yahoo! Maps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Maps), and the [Samsung Gear S2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Gear_S2) (and earlier models) maps app.[[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Technologies#cite_note-mashable_info_1-4)[[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_Technologies#cite_note-idealab_here_info_1-5) So I’m pretty sure that 100% of their income comes from B2B (business to business) and the Here WeGo app is just offered for free to consumers for brand-building and improving the traffic data. (Note that HERE is owned by a consortium of German automakers so they probably use the same data for their built-in navigation systems.) It’s similar to Magic Earth (another navigation app) where they say: > What is the business model? > Magic Earth is free for all our end-users but we also have a paid Magic Earth SDK for business partners. For instance [Selectric.de](http://Selectric.de) (a supplier for navigation solutions for ambulances and fire trucks), Smarter AI (developing ADAS systems) or Absolute Cycling (using the platform on bicycles). For more info on the SDK, you can check [magiclane.com](http://magiclane.com). --- ## Post 25 by @anon55464882 — 2025-01-07T16:07:50Z Indeed, their privacy policy is slightly better to that of Google Maps, as Here WeGo gathers more data in an anonymized manner. However, what I mean to convey is that it still falls significantly short of being truly privacy-conscious in any real sense. So one could just use Google Maps. --- ## Post 26 by @SpunkyEatsYou — 2025-01-07T16:30:17Z if they anonymize the data (even if the location data are not 100% anonymizable) and do not use it for advertising or marketing, I think this would meet the thread model of many users I think I would much prefer it to use Google Maps Undoubtedly however, a service like Organic Maps it is preferable because it is Open source and have better anonymity, but obviously lacks important features and updated maps in some areas. --- ## Post 27 by @anon55464882 — 2025-01-07T16:54:47Z To be clear, while Here WeGo anonymizes some of the data it collects, they still gather a significant amount of identifiable user data, such as account information, usage patterns within the app, and device details. Therefore it is really not to be considered as privacy-friendly. Critically, while they generally avoid using this personal data for targeted advertising, they do display advertisements based on contextual information, like your current location. --- ## Post 28 by @Regime6045 — 2025-01-07T17:19:06Z > account information only if you create one, which is quite unnecessary I don’t think anyone would claim that HERE is the _best_ in terms of privacy, but it is a good balance between usability and privacy. Like, Google Maps is surely the best app overall, but much less private than HERE. And Organic Maps or OSMand are much more private than HERE, but lack some functionality that might be very essential for some. For me it’s the traffic info for example, including live re-routing if the situation changes. So I would argue for having it listed but in an “additional options” subsection like it’s currently done for some of the instant messengers ([link](https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/#additional-options)) --- ## Post 29 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-01-07T17:33:38Z I don’t think Here should be recommended. To me it is pretty similar to using Google Maps in Incognito with all data collection settings disabled. --- ## Post 30 by @SpunkyEatsYou — 2025-01-07T17:42:23Z > [@anon55464882](#): > > they do display advertisements based on contextual information, like your current location. From the Here Maps Privacy Policy: > If you wish not to share your location with the advertising network, you can choose do so in the app settings under ‘Location-based ads’. If you wish to change your settings related to behaviourally profiled advertising, you can always do so from your device settings. Note that in any case you may still receive ads, but just not profiled. As for usage patterns and device information so that they don’t use them to track you (but I could be wrong since I gave a quick check to the policy) I think it’s fine at least for me I don’t think there will ever be a service, at least in the near future, that offers traffic and other useful information like HERE definitely not to be added to the main section of privacy guide as Regime6045 says, but it seems like an excellent exchange for privacy and usability. --- ## Post 31 by @Regime6045 — 2025-03-13T11:42:28Z Pull request here: [update!: add HERE WeGo recommendation by eylenburg · Pull Request #2948 · privacyguides/privacyguides.org · GitHub](https://github.com/privacyguides/privacyguides.org/pull/2948) **HERE WeGo** is a proprietary app made by HERE Technologies, a company owned by a consortium of multiple German automakers as well as Intel. The app’s features include turn-by-turn navigation for walking, cycling and driving as well as using public transport, live traffic information, speed camera warnings, terrain and satellite maps, the ability to download maps for offline use, and shop info such as opening times or Yelp reviews. The app can send your location data in order to provide real-time traffic information, but this is an opt-in feature and the data is anonymized (not linked to your personal identity). Unlike the previous recommendations, HERE WeGo uses its own proprietary map data and is therefore a good option for users who live in regions where OpenStreetMap is insufficient. In fact, HERE’s map data is used by several car manufacturers for their built-in navigation systems. --- ## Post 32 by @phnx — 2025-03-13T12:14:15Z For someone who needs traffic data, is there ever a situation where Magic Earth would be better than Here WeGo or vice versa? I think we should pick one unless someone has a compelling reason both should be recommended. --- ## Post 33 by @Pragmatic — 2025-03-13T12:26:29Z And why recommend only one, PG offers several different recommendations for password managers, browsers, search engines, etc., let’s put them both, OM and Osmand apart from when travelling for offline mode and for contributing to OSM are useless without real-time traffic, you have to stop forcing 100% open source in all circumstances. Putting in both will prevent some users from using much worse software like GMaps. --- ## Post 34 by @phnx — 2025-03-13T12:37:43Z > [@Pragmatic](#): > > you have to stop forcing 100% open source in all circumstances I don’t know what you are talking about. Neither Here WeGo nor Magic Earth are open source, yet I am quite clearly open to one of them being added. In the future, please read messages before responding to them. > [@Pragmatic](#): > > useless without real-time traffic They are objectively speaking not useless without real-time traffic since they fulfil their purpose of navigation nonetheless. Traffic data is also not nearly as important as you think it is. Most people drive the same routes very often, and traffic is extremely predictable. > [@Pragmatic](#): > > Putting in both will prevent some users from using much worse software like GMaps. The purpose of Privacy Guides is not and will never be to recommend alternatives to Google Maps or other privacy-invasive products at all costs. In the absence of a suitable product to recommend, rather than lowering the standards to accommodate a subpar option, no recommendation will be made. --- ## Post 35 by @Pragmatic — 2025-03-13T12:59:32Z You’re learning to read, I said we should stop “forcing 100% source whatever happens” so that means I’m in favour of adding Magic Earth and Here WeGo to PG. The aim of PG is to offer ‘preferred’ open source alternatives that respect privacy. What’s more, no matter how hard you try and say the opposite, a mapping application without real-time traffic isn’t much use, and I know this because I only use OM to contribute and to drive around town. --- ## Post 36 by @anon55464882 — 2025-03-13T13:19:21Z As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t believe HERE WeGo should be recommended because it’s not really privacy-friendly. Just being better than Google Maps or Bing Maps doesn’t meet our criteria. In fact, even Apple Maps offers a more favorable privacy policy in my opinion. --- ## Post 37 by @Regime6045 — 2025-03-13T14:47:46Z The criteria at the moment are: > Minimum Requirements > > ``` > Must not collect PII per their privacy policy. > Must not require users to create an account with them. > Must not require users to share location data. If the user opts in to sharing their location, this data must be anonymized. > Must retain core functionality when offline and allow users to download maps for offline use. > ``` Which I think are all met by HERE --- ## Post 38 by @KevPham — 2025-03-13T14:49:08Z Let’s tone the discussion here a bit! Anyways, I do see both @phnx’s point and your point on whether it’s worth adding multiple closed source navigation apps here. Personally, there is still a need for us to review these proprietary options before making a solid recommendation for either Magic Earth or Here WeGo. If we do decide to include both, there must be a _really_ good reason to do so. All that requires personal testing of both apps and see how the user experience differs. --- ## Post 39 by @phnx — 2025-03-13T15:01:55Z Having just looked at their privacy I have to concur. Users being automatically opted-in to location-based advertising makes this a non-starter imo. > **[Location based advertising](https://legal.here.com/en-gb/privacy/here-wego-here-application-or-here-maps-privacy-supplement-updated)** > > The Service may include provision of location based advertising or other similar content. For example if you ask for weather information you may be served with advertising content tailored to that location. > > The Service may also include behaviorally profiled advertisements. For the purposes of providing relevant advertisements to you, we may share your device specific advertising ID to advertising networks. --- ## Post 40 by @Regime6045 — 2025-03-13T15:02:58Z If you think it’s best to only have one proprietary option, in that case I’d personally go with HERE WeGo, because it has its own map data and generally more features. Magic Earth is very similar to Organic Maps or OSMand as it also uses OSM data for the maps, which can be low quality in some countries or regions. --- ## Post 41 by @Pragmatic — 2025-03-13T16:32:36Z Magic Earth has absolutely nothing to do with OM and Osmand because the application offers the basics, real time traffic, you use Magic Earth and Here WeGo or nothing at all. --- ## Post 42 by @MandyW — 2025-03-13T23:14:31Z **PSA: Best of both worlds aka a workable compromise** **Use Here WeGo Offline for Better Privacy** 1. **Install** the Here WeGo app. 2. **Download** offline maps of your areas of interest. 3. **Disable** network access for the app. 4. **Run** the app in offline mode. **Notes:** - Live traffic and other network-dependent features won’t work offline. - For enhanced privacy, clear the app’s cache periodically or reinstall it. - Maps typically remain accurate for a year or longer, depending on your location. This setup helps prevent data leakage while maintaining core functionality. --- ## Post 43 by @Pragmatic — 2025-03-14T06:37:30Z What you’re proposing isn’t compromise, it’s pointless, if that’s what it’s all about you might as well use OM or Osmand. There’s no logic in using a navigation application with real-time traffic without using real-time traffic, it’s useless. --- ## Post 44 by @quitet.gear — 2025-08-30T14:47:20Z FYI, I just got an alert of Here WeGo’s privacy policy updating and it looks worse than it used to be. More specificaly, I don’t remember a paragraph like this before: > The Service may send your Location Data to HERE when you use location enabled features of the Service, such as enable navigation, ask information about nearby services or offerings, use search features, provide you with relevant offers from Transport Providers and public transportation vendors, as well as when the Service asks for new maps for new areas you have navigated into. If I remember correctly, location data was only shared with HERE when you opted in for live traffic data. At least they still claim to anonymise and aggreate the location data. This also feels new: > The Service may include provision of location based advertising or other similar content. […] The Service may also include behaviorally profiled advertisements. For the purposes of providing relevant advertisements to you, we may share your device specific advertising ID to advertising networks. I’m not sure this new Privacy Policy is any better than Google Maps’ :frowning: --- ## Post 45 by @fria — 2025-08-30T14:58:01Z > [@quitet.gear](#): > > I’m not sure this new Privacy Policy is any better than Google Maps’ :frowning: Yeah really I’m not big on relying on privacy policy and pinky promises anyway, if there was an online maps service that used homomorphic encryption or something to ensure they couldn’t access your data even if they wanted to then I’d be interested but splitting hairs about which service technically has the better privacy policy isn’t very useful to me. --- ## Post 46 by @redoomed1 — 2025-08-30T18:16:54Z 2 posts were merged into an existing topic: [Magic Earth](/t/magic-earth/25752/11) --- ## Post 47 by @Regime6045 — 2025-12-05T09:43:01Z Now that Magic Earth has become paid if you want offline maps or traffic info, I wonder if it’s worth having another look at HERE. The current recommendations, Organic Maps and OSMand, don’t have any traffic data, which, depending where you live, might make it completely useless for navigation and makes users fall back to Google Maps or Apple Maps. Is Here WeGo good enough as a “least bad” option for those needing traffic info? Or do the new changes to privacy policy disqualify it? --- ## Post 48 by @anon39279085 — 2025-12-05T09:54:45Z Here WeGo is not a privacy alternative to things like CoMaps/Organic Maps, taking a look at [HERE WeGo | Maps & Navigation | Applications | HERE](https://www.here.com/products/wego) Literally below it, expanding legal there’s a “Do Not Sell my Personal Data” button The fact that you have to actively opt out should say much --- ## Post 49 by @win11.shading291 — 2025-12-08T02:45:11Z Google maps is the only product I can’t fully replace. I tried comaps again, but unfortunately, route recommendation is not taking traffic into consideration and it’s just terrible because of it, at least for me. --- ## Post 50 by @anon39279085 — 2025-12-08T06:22:47Z CoMaps is based off Organic Maps, they do not have traffic information --- ## Post 51 by @anon12918199 — 2025-12-08T06:58:48Z Might be some software misunderstandings going on here. It’s impossible to have traffic data in FOSS apps as that data is a big part of the network effect of large businesses and it costs money. Google doesn’t sell this data, but other businesses like TomTom do. At the end of the day you’ll be paying for traffic data either with your money or your data or both. --- ## Post 52 by @kissu — 2025-12-08T07:33:49Z Sounds like the way to go indeed. Car manufacturers are maybe also part of it? Not sure where the data could come from besides FOSS street lights? Which is probably not a thing/or is a stretch. :joy: --- ## Post 53 by @paulrudy — 2026-01-15T16:05:20Z There’s discussion on [this thread at Organic Maps github](https://github.com/orgs/organicmaps/discussions/568) about possible ways to incorporate live traffic. From plugging in your own subscription to some paid service to pulling free and open source data. EDIT: Also [an issue for CoMaps](https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/issues/84) about implementing live traffic