A community-led fork of Organic Maps

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Backstory and Reasons for the Fork

  • Organic Maps is stuck in a shareholder conflict, with no resolution on ownership and project control, creating uncertainty about its future.
  • Negotiations around converting it into a more community-governed or non-profit structure reportedly failed; one owner wants to retain full control and only promises not to sell.
  • Contributors are concerned about:
    • Lack of financial transparency around donations.
    • Past decisions like adding commercial affiliate links without community input.
    • Some server-side components and tooling allegedly not being fully open.
  • CoMaps emerges as a community-led fork, driven largely by long‑time, high‑volume contributors who no longer want to build value for a for‑profit, opaque entity.

BDFL vs Community Governance

  • Some participants prefer a strong “benevolent dictator” for clarity and speed of decision-making, but note this only works while the “benevolent” part holds.
  • Others argue that:
    • When money and ownership enter, BDFL models become risky.
    • Forks are more like civil wars than smooth succession; they fragment communities (WordPress is cited as an example where people tolerate a problematic leader to avoid chaos).
  • Several comments frame Organic Maps not as a pure BDFL project but as a shareholder-controlled company with unclear accountability, making the governance risk feel worse.

Trust, Money, and Legitimacy

  • A central tension is whether it’s acceptable that donations may fund private benefits (e.g. travel) without explicit disclosure; many say payment is fine but secrecy isn’t.
  • Skeptics of the fork point out:
    • The original team pays for heavy map hosting and mirroring.
    • CoMaps is new, still without releases, and must prove it can fund infrastructure and stay transparent.
  • Supporters counter that:
    • Most active non-owner contributors back the fork.
    • Forkability and clear, written governance (published on Codeberg) are key to long‑term trust.

UX, Features, and Ecosystem Context

  • Organic Maps is praised for:
    • Fast, lightweight, offline-first navigation and hiking use.
    • Simpler UI than OSMAnd, which is powerful but slow and complex.
  • Major pain points repeatedly mentioned:
    • Weak search (typos, fuzzy matches, categories, addresses).
    • Limited routing flexibility and lack of alternative routes, especially for cycling.
    • No robust public transport integration and no satellite imagery.
  • Many see Organic/CoMaps, OSMAnd, and similar apps as frontends to OpenStreetMap data:
    • OSM holds the raw map data; apps add rendering, routing, packaging, and UX.
    • Some argue OSM needs a popular, contribution-friendly end-user app, but the OSM Foundation intentionally stays vendor-neutral.
  • There is broader frustration that, after years of work, OSM-based mobile apps still lag Google Maps or commercial apps (e.g. Mapy, Here WeGo) on search, POI data, and transit—even if they win on privacy and offline reliability.

Broader Reflections on Forking

  • Forks of forks are seen by some as normal and healthy in FOSS; others feel repeated drama and fragmentation can exhaust communities.
  • Several voices emphasize that governance should be designed early (with democratic or at least accountable structures) so that “just fork it later” isn’t the only safety valve.