Hacker News Reader

> I'm saying that OSM data is objectively better for the rural parts of the world I've been to.

Which is a subjective factor. "X is objectively better for the categories that I subjectively selected".

Mapping is a subjective topic, simply because there are endless ways to evaluate and compare maps, so attributing any type of weight to any factor is a subjective exercise based on your own personal preferences.

View on HN

I'll agree that what layers a map ought to show is a subjective matter.

But if you have two maps and they both have a shared subset of layers, you can (for that subset) objectively evaluate which map more accurately represents the real world, eg: has more objects than the other map, and/or has objects marked more accurately.

And what I'm saying is that for the layers that they have in common, I think OSM wins hands down.

The place where you live and the places you happen to visit is a subjective factor. Other people (who visit other places) might have a different overall experience, even if you'd agree with them on any place you both visited.

What's your reason for thinking Google is the best then? Do you even use maps for anything except major highways?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com