• massacre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Some perspective from a user who’s been on Magic Earth for well over a year:

    • It works very well. With a few quirks, it’s like 90-95% as useful as Google Maps for a majority of personas
    • It’s a mature app, finds most addresses (with possible exception of recent changes like a business moving)
    • Does surprisingly well with being current on traffic conditions
    • While not FOSS, they seem to be open about what they sell of your information and it’s in aggregate, so I’m much less worried about location data being tied to other online dossiers I’ve left in my digital paper trail.

    I found that Organic Maps and OsmAnd+ just couldn’t cut it at all for finding addresses, routing wasn’t super great (or intuitive), and otherwise rated very low on family acceptance as a replacement for Google Maps. I used Acastus Photon for addresses and frankly it’s not that much better and the workflow was janky and pretty useless when you want to plot route waypoints. Magic Earth was the bridge between fully de-googling and having a livable acceptance factor. So far I haven’t seen them doing anything they don’t claim (not getting in trouble privacy-wise), so I’m good.

    I would say “privacy friendly” is accurate in the title - but this is not FOSS. Even so for those looking to de-google without losing utility, I recommend it and am glad it exists.

    Edit: I wish some apps (looking at you Starbucks!) would use a default mapping engine like Magic Earth instead of expecing Google Maps on Android phones (Graphene, Lineage, Calyx)

    • SoManyChoices@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree completely with your review of Magic Earth. I will say that I keep some maps on my phone in Organic Maps as well. They are easier for me to follow when hiking on forest trails. When we went trailblazing on snowshoes, it made finding our way back to the main route simple.

    • FOSS Is Fun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding it, but as far as I see it, OsmAnd’s non-free assets include the entire UI (layout + icons).

      Since the UI of an Android app is an essential part, I don’t consider OsmAnd to be opensource.

      • infeeeee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Some icons of the undergrounds have different license. Read your first link carefully. And you link the source of the ui, or you don’t consider png files as “source”?

        If it wouldn’t be foss, it couldn’t be built by the f-droid build system, it can only build foss projects

        Edit: i was wrong

        • FOSS Is Fun@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The license contains the following clause:

          • UI Design and UX work, such as layout and icons, are covered by CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0

          That’s why I linked the folder Osmand/tree/master/OsmAnd/res. It contains icons and XML files, which are used to describe the UI.

          CC-BY-NC-ND is a non-free license. It forbids commercial redistribution and it doesn’t allow any modification of the files. OsmAnd further restricts what you can do, as it does not allow redistribution in the most popular app stores without permission.

          If it wouldn’t be foss, it couldn’t be built by the f-droid build system, it can only build foss projects

          The source files are publicly available, so F-Droid can use them to build the app, but the license restricts what you can do with these files.

          F-Droid does not sell the app (non-commercial clause), is not modifying it (non-derivative clause) and is not listed as one of the restricted app stores, so it can distribute the app. But this does not make the app free and open-source software.

          • infeeeee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Aha, I see, you can consider it whatever you want, maybe the “not fully free software” would be a better term, but “not open source” is too harsh, because source is open, as you can see it, but doesn’t fit the definition of Free Software as defined by FSF. If you use requirements by FSF, please use their terminology as well, it’s confusing.

            Also please contact FSF, because they recommend this non-free app on their website: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:Replicant-expanded#Navigation