7 ms·
To illustrate this, look at OsmAnd's most recent blog post [1]. They've recently been looking at adding pretty extensive Astronomy features. Before that, they a
by Vinnl 21d ago
To illustrate this, look at OsmAnd's most recent blog post [1]. They've recently been looking at adding pretty extensive Astronomy features. Before that, they added a lot of nautical tooling [2]. This is all very cool if you use that, but if you don't, the laundry list of such features make it harder to find the features you do use.
I used OsmAnd for a long time, and it's a great app that I learned how to use well. And while I do miss some features (most notably the Wikivoyage integration for offline travel guides), ultimately the simplicity of CoMaps makes it much more pleasant to use for the thing I mostly use it for: getting around cities.
[1] https://osmand.net/blog/eclipse-explorer/ https://osmand.net/blog/eclipse-explorer/
[2] https://osmand.net/blog/nautical-maps https://osmand.net/blog/nautical-maps
- shiandow 20d agoEven if it adds some complication I really enjoy just having both features available when I need to. But then I'm a sucker for gadgets. In a way both provide answers to the question, what is that light? Performance is the main reason to prefer CoMaps but they've gotten a lot better at it (and inevitably you have to sacrifice some speed for customisability)
- bluebarbet 20d agoIndeed. I have a theory that software complexity tends to bring with it a subjective perception of slowness that might not show up if measured empirically. At one point Osmand certainly had an issue rendering lots of POIs, but it was addressed and these days the app feels (to me) acceptably quick.
- cicko 20d agoOsmAnd's search feature always sucked whereas CoMaps' is just beautiful. I wish it was simpler to share a location between the two, once I find it.