[HN Gopher] Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use naviga...
___________________________________________________________________
Google Maps now requires WiFi scanning to use navigation
I've been using Google Maps a long time, and during all of that
time I have only used GPS for location tracking on Android.
Depending upon the version of Android, I've had different things
disabled. Wifi scanning. Bluetooth. Cell location data. Etc. Always
with one single goal -- GPS only for location. And further, this
is always, especially with newer versions of Android, restricted in
many ways. For example, only allowing when an app is active, and so
on. Google has always played games with Maps, using dark patterns.
For example, with the versions prior to the current version, if I
wanted Maps to zoom in on my location, I'd hit the tracking button.
It'd first say something like "To continue, turn on device
location". Of course, device location _is_ on, but it 's only for
GPS, and google _so badly_ wants that (apparently) vital, and sweet
wifi + bluetooth + cell tracking data. Yet you could cancel this
before, and it would then zoom in on your present location.
Because, of course, GPS works _fine_ for that. I could also use
only GPS, leaving wifi and bluetooth and so on scanning off to use
navigation. I've driven all over North America and Europe that way
too, and yes with Maps. Tricky dark patterns (ie, lying) about
needing wifi scanning to find a route is just insulting, and
absurd. Now, enter a new update. I can no longer navigate with
Google Maps, unless full location tracking is on. Comments in Play
Store indicate others hit the same wall. Yeah, right Google,
driving in the middle of the country, with GPS, is helped by
scanning wifi while I pass farmer's fields?! Google has now drawn
a line in the sand. Give us all your local SSIDs, local bluetooth
connections, with likely even more detail, or they now refuse to
allow you to use Maps to navigate. I immediately installed Organic
Maps, and I'm sure there are loads of others as an option. Google
wants that wifi data _so bad_ , that the only thing I can equate it
to, is a used car salesperson. I get the impression that the Maps
team is channeling Smeagol, and just _shudder_.
Author : bbarnett
Score : 211 points
Date : 2022-02-01 19:31 UTC (3 hours ago)
| homero wrote:
| Wow yeah it exits if I click no thanks. I've always kept scanning
| off.
| mcast wrote:
| Maybe someone should build a portable (FCC compliant?) device to
| put in your car that spoofs and rotates a bunch of 2.4/5Ghz SSIDs
| periodically to "trick" apps that mine wifi data with GPS
| location. Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or
| "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway.
|
| Even easier, just reverse engineer the API and send the SSIDs
| yourself.
| mmh0000 wrote:
| A rapsberry pi, a drop dead simple shell script[1], and
| airbase[0] will get you this in 15 minutes:
|
| [0] https://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=airbase-ng
|
| [1] quickliest and dirtiest: #!/bin/bash
| while read line; do echo "creating basestation ${line}"
| airbase-ng -c 9 -e "${line}" -W 1 wlan0 & done < <(echo
| -e "ap_name_1\nap_name_2\nyet_more_ap")
| stefan_ wrote:
| You should also randomize the BSSID.
| [deleted]
| skykooler wrote:
| I used to ride a train which had onboard wifi. Whenever I was
| on the train and underground, Google Maps would decide that I
| was at the terminal station of the train - which I assume is
| where it first scanned that SSID - and would try to reroute me.
| uneekname wrote:
| If this was codified into a repo, I'd absolutely deploy one or
| two of my own.
| DrBoring wrote:
| > Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or
| "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway.
|
| Is the goal to make Google Maps publish a Starbucks/McDonalds
| in the middle of the highway? I can't imagine they would use
| the SSID as a source for building location.
| mcast wrote:
| No, the SSIDs are used to assist the GPS on where the user is
| located. Likewise, the data is used to triangulate a user in
| a specific business/location without needing access to GPS
| (some more nefarious uses: user is connected to "Joe's
| Psychiatry Wifi" every Wednesday, maybe we could group the
| user as a depressed adult for advertisers).
| gowld wrote:
| > No, the SSIDs are used to assist the GPS on where the
| user is located.
|
| and vice versa, GPS is used to assist on where the SSIDs
| are located.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > user is connected to "Joe's Psychiatry Wifi" every
| Wednesday, maybe we could group the user as a depressed
| adult for advertisers
|
| If you can think of any kind of nefarious use for data, you
| can safely bet that Zuckerberg has already done it: https:/
| /web.archive.org/web/20160830031017/http://fusion.net...
| notacoward wrote:
| > Bonus points for bogus names like "Starbucks Wifi" or
| "McDonalds Free Wifi" in the middle of the highway.
|
| I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you some
| unwelcome attention - trademark infringement, defamation,
| tortious interference - from one of those companies. :(
| SllX wrote:
| Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been sued over their SSID?
| tqwhite wrote:
| I have a neighbor whose SSID is itHurtsWhenIP. I've always
| liked that.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >I have a neighbor whose SSID is itHurtsWhenIP. I've
| always liked that.
|
| While it may not be the source of your neighbor's SSID,
| It's certainly possible (maybe even likely) that it's a
| reference to this song[0].
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vmPwZT-9zY
| notacoward wrote:
| Good question. I'd be surprised if those companies would go
| after an _individual_ over an "infringing" SSID, but if
| you _sold a product_ using them that would be a different
| matter. An open-source project would probably fall
| somewhere in between.
| dmje wrote:
| We had one on our street called FuckOffAndGetYourOwn which
| I always liked
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I've always been partial to ones named like "NSA Monitor
| 3AB9D4"
| youngbullind wrote:
| I have my phone's hot-spot named Surveillance van no. 42,
| and an open guest wifi for whoever needs it called It's
| nice to be nice
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >We had one on our street called FuckOffAndGetYourOwn
| which I always liked
|
| There was an SSID in my building called "Free Palestine."
| A couple years later, someone created another one called
| "The Shin Bet."[0]
|
| I found that to be both disturbing and amusing. After the
| Muslim grad students on the third floor moved back to
| Australia, "Free Palestine" disappeared, and when the
| orthodox Jews moved out of the fourth floor, "The Shin
| Bet" went away too.
|
| Now it's mostly boring, and while I may be doxxing myself
| (if you can see this SSID, reply here as we almost
| certainly live in the same building) but I still have the
| SSID GranMal (an ironic reference to this[1]).
|
| Moral: Looking at SSIDs can be fun!
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Bet
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6015645/
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Seems like so few people would a actually do this they would
| fly under the radar, though it's good to be aware of
| potential problems.
| can16358p wrote:
| Is there a law regarding which names you can't use for
| hotspots/APs?
|
| Even if there is, I doubt anyone will go after that unless
| the "attacker" involves some serious crime with that
| combined.
|
| Attacking innocent people with rogue SSIDs would be
| definitely wrong, but if done only to trick Google it would
| be a fun experiment - and they deserve it (maybe not for this
| particular change but as a company in general).
| notacoward wrote:
| It doesn't have to be a case they can _win_ to be extremely
| troublesome for you (though they probably could win if
| their trademark is embedded in your code). Unless you can
| afford to make your own lawyers rich, it 's a bit unwise to
| go "I dare you" to large US companies. Better to ship
| something less incriminating, and leave the spicier
| suggestions for anonymous comments on web forums.
| can16358p wrote:
| Just another idea popped. What if your code doesn't
| include any bitstream that contains "Starbucks" but has
| some ML driven mechanism of passively listening to Wifis
| around the city, noting them and using those names
| dynamically? Since Starbucks McDonalds etc would
| (probably) be the highest quantity of signals found your
| code will be mimicking those names without having a
| single bit in the code.
|
| What would be the legality of that (as long as the
| intention is not to attack the public)?
| notacoward wrote:
| IANAL (maybe one will weigh in) but that sounds a lot
| safer to me.
| tetha wrote:
| Hm. If it's in your car, yeah.
|
| Though if I put a thing like that in my window, you'd
| have to rummage through 20 - 50 flats to find the source
| of that SSID to identify the creator. With zero legal
| reason to search my flat over my neighbours flat and vice
| versa. And also, there is no actual interruption of radio
| services, so there is no reason to bring in more precise
| measuring equipment. And I might even have enough time to
| toss that pi off of the balcony if all else fails.
| vgeek wrote:
| Maybe change it up a bit? :D
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djI_ret3S9g
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >I find no joy in saying it, but I bet that would get you
| some unwelcome attention - trademark infringement,
| defamation, tortious interference - from one of those
| companies. :(
|
| While that's a wonderfully dystopian view, I'd expect that
| wouldn't happen unless you attempted to use such SSIDs in a
| _commercial_ context.
|
| for your "wager" to be successful, I should expect to be sued
| over saying stuff like "Old McDonald had a quarter pounder
| Henway" or "Starbuck made the same inferior coffee for Ahab
| every day."
|
| I'll await cease and desist letters from McDonald's and
| Starbucks.
|
| According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office[0]:
| Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a
| trademark or service mark on or in connection with
| goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to
| cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the
| source of the goods and/or services.
|
| Not sure how using a WiFi SSID or other statement that
| includes trademarked terms (especially those that have
| cultural roots separate from the trademarks) could be an
| infringement unless the source is actually selling or
| marketing a competing product.
|
| [0] https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement
| jonas21 wrote:
| Are you sure they're not doing this to get approximate location
| for use with A-GPS? Sure, GPS will work without it, but your time
| to first fix is going to be much longer, and your phone will have
| no idea where you are while you're waiting for that fix.
|
| There's a good overview of A-GPS in module 5 here [1]. This is
| just how people expect GPS to work on modern mobile phones, to
| the point where they'd probably consider it a bug if they had to
| wait a while to get a fix.
|
| [1]
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CBINyC3NWU&list=PLGvhNIiu1u...
| bryceacc wrote:
| that most definitely is the reason to ask for wifi scanning,
| but the point was reiterated many times in the post. This is
| about privacy AND the fact that GPS-only navigation works
| globally just fine. If the user wishes to have that improved
| cold start approximate location then sure, turn on wifi
| scanning. If they do not wish to give that up, they should
| still be able to navigate
| M4v3R wrote:
| AGPS works with cellular, Wi-Fi is not required. So no, it's
| not only for this reason.
| jonas21 wrote:
| As I understand it, the OP is trying to keep all non-GPS
| location sources disabled.
|
| > _I 've had different things disabled. Wifi scanning.
| Bluetooth. Cell location data. Etc. Always with one single
| goal -- GPS only for location. _
| jrockway wrote:
| I think cold start times on modern GPS units are on the order
| of 30 seconds now. Even if you lose all almanac and ephemeris
| data, and don't know what time it is. AGPS is nice (2s cold
| start times), but by no means essential for a decent user
| experience.
|
| (The datasheets are not a lie. I have had a ZED-F9P on the
| shelf for a month or so. Plugged it in and had a fix in 32
| seconds. The delay was that I could only see 3 GPS satellites,
| so had to fall back to the slightly slower multi-constellation
| cold start.)
| causality0 wrote:
| I have regarded the entire Google Maps dev team with utter
| contempt since they first combined maps and navigation into one
| app, thereby preventing you from using both at the same time.
|
| At this point I'd rather use a paper map then let Google wardrive
| using my phone 24 hours a day.
| Geonode wrote:
| My biggest pet peeve is that when you search for something,
| your starred places disappear.
|
| Hey, I'm actually trying to see if this is close to somewhere I
| go! What's the closest post office to my daughter's school? Oh,
| wait, where'd the school go? Insane.
| easrng wrote:
| If you use the Android Go version the maps and navigation are
| separate.
| gowld wrote:
| Maps Go is available for regular Android.
|
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and.
| ..
| recursive wrote:
| I don't understand this at all. If they're both in the same
| app, then aren't you using them both every time you're using
| it? What does it mean to navigate without using a map?
| daviddisco wrote:
| What is the value of sniffing the local ssids? As far as I know
| it is just to get a better and faster lock on location (sometimes
| GPS signals are weak) and therefore give better navigation. Does
| anyone know of some other purpose?
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| I'm curious as well. Who out there is even using open wifi
| without at least a captive portal? What benefit to Google is
| there to just collect SSIDs?
| Croftengea wrote:
| To know where you are even with GPS off.
| ProAm wrote:
| To serve ads. They can tell a business a consumer was withing X
| distance if your establishment. We can show them an
| advertisement in google maps the next time they are near by if
| you gladly pay us
| legitster wrote:
| GPS is pretty battery intensive.
|
| Your phone is already gathering a list of every SSID it touches
| every second. If Google can eliminate the need to use GPS to
| confirm that you are sitting at your desk, it can eliminate a
| bunch of needless GPS calculations.
| lelandfe wrote:
| My understanding is that they keep a record of SSID's and their
| GPS-mapped location to know _your_ exact location when you
| connect.
|
| Google has done really dark stuff with WiFi networks before,
| like when it came out that their StreetView cars were
| wardriving and intercepting data:
| https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
|
| > The design document showed that, in addition to collecting
| data that Google could use to map the location of wireless
| access points, Engineer Doe intended to collect, store, and
| analyze payload data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks
|
| At this point, I'm skeptical of _any_ data I provide Google;
| they are masterminds at combining multiple points of data into
| something useful.
| lakis wrote:
| This has a dual purpose. From your perspective, that's
| true. It gives a better and faster lock on location. But
| at the same time, it associate the WIFI with a location with
| the accuracy of a GPS. So when you go into your laptop
| which has no GPS, the WiFi which you connect now has a real
| location association with it. Presto. Now Google can
| track your real location on your laptop and any other WiFi
| enabled device.
| beeboop wrote:
| GPS is only so accurate on phones by itself. I assume
| harvesting SSIDs helps a lot for knowing specifically which
| stores you're shopping at in a dense area with weak GPS signal.
| It's very accurate with it's "How did you like visiting _____?"
| notifications and if you look at your location history I think
| it also accurately labels stores well.
|
| Obviously knowing every store you visit is very useful
| advertising data.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Of course, device location is on, but it's only for GPS, and
| google so badly wants that (apparently) vital, and sweet wifi +
| bluetooth + cell tracking data.
|
| I'd believe this has been made to reduce the number of "Maps
| takes soooo long to acquire my position on the map / can't find
| me when I'm in a building" complaints. A WiFi scan will be very
| quick (to the tune of 1-5s) to establish rough coordinates, a GPS
| TTFF can take _minutes_ or be outright impossible.
| onion2k wrote:
| Hanlon's Razor ("Never attribute to malice that which can be
| adequately explained by stupidity.") may well apply here. It
| could just be a bug.
| jevoten wrote:
| Google has proven _so many_ times they don 't deserve the
| benefit of the doubt, bringing up Hanlon's razor is a bad joke
| at this point.
|
| Unfortunately I can't find the story of that Mozilla developer
| that recounted how many times Google introduced "bugs" that
| only harmed Firefox, and how long it took them to realize this
| was malicious due to applying Hanlon's razor.
|
| The fact is, if your opponent is even moderately intelligent,
| Hanlon's razor guarantees to keep you blind to their
| intentions.
| 0x002A wrote:
| I think this time Occam's razor works just fine ;-)
| alserio wrote:
| Sure. But the actor gains something valuable from this, so it
| would be a very convenient bug.
| buran77 wrote:
| Google has been explicitly conditioning access to some features
| on users agreeing to share data [0]. This is perfectly in line
| with that strategy. Bugs which happen to work out that way
| aren't bugs.
|
| [0] https://bgr.com/tech/google-maps-forces-you-to-share-
| locatio...
| jevoten wrote:
| That article reads like a corporate press release, and is
| full of misleading statements and outright lies, from the
| very first sentence:
|
| _If you use Google Maps to get around, you probably know
| that Google has to access your location information. That's
| the only way that it can offer turn-by-turn navigation and
| direction features._
|
| Plenty of map apps can calculate a route offline and offer
| navigation, without any data leaving the device. But Google
| and other companies want to keep people ignorant of how much
| can be done offline, so they have an excuse to spy on us.
| acqbu wrote:
| Google = Garbage. I don't recommend using any of their services.
| For a maps replacement, I'd recommend OsmAnd or Magic Earth -
| both available on f-droid.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| While I'm not sure if this change to Google Maps has been or will
| be widely rolled out, you may want to look into what GrapheneOS
| is working on with their Google Play compatibility layer [1]. It
| basically lets people use Google's services inside Android's
| standard app sandbox. That means they don't get access to
| privileged system APIs and can only access what the user chooses.
| It can also be used without a Google account.
|
| GrapheneOS is working on a way to redirect the Play services
| location APIs to an open source implementation of those APIs
| which uses standard Android location APIs [2]. It's expected to
| be available in an upcoming release [3].
|
| [1] https://grapheneos.org/usage#sandboxed-google-play
|
| [2]
| https://developer.android.com/reference/android/location/Loc...
|
| [3] https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1486182874567122945
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > to an open source implementation of those APIs
|
| Is this MicroG? https://microg.org/
| jdiez17 wrote:
| No, microG is a partial reimplementation of _some_ of the
| functionality in the Google Mobile Services (GMS) app.
| Unfortunately, this approach has significant drawbacks. In
| order to install microG, your version of Android OS needs
| support for spoofing the cryptographic signatures of apps.
| Some OSes like LineageOS and CalyxOS allow this. See [1] for
| some pointers about why this is considered harmful. There was
| also a recent fairly serious infoleak bug in microG [2] that
| in my opinion was caused by its broad scope.
|
| The way it works in GrapheneOS is that the OS redirects
| Binder connections (an IPC mechanism in Android) to a
| trusted, bundled app (GmsCompat) which will only implement
| the Play services location API in the foreseeable future. The
| rest of the Google Play functionality is implemented by GMS
| itself.
|
| [1] https://madaidans-
| insecurities.github.io/android.html#microg...
|
| [2] https://github.com/microg/GmsCore/issues/1567
| contravariant wrote:
| That article may be overstating the danger somewhat, it
| will depend on the way the ROM chooses to implement it
| certainly but none of them give the permission
| automatically, some require you to enable it deep in the
| advanced app settings and some only enable it for system-
| level privileged apps (and if you can't trust those, then
| what _can_ you trust?). See for instance LineageOS for
| MicroG 's claims:
|
| >The signature spoofing could be an unsafe feature only if
| the user blindly gives any permission to any app, as this
| permission can't be obtained automatically by the apps.
| Moreover, to further strengthen the security of our ROM, we
| modified the signature spoofing permission so that only
| system privileged apps can obtain it, and no security
| threat is posed to our users.
|
| https://lineage.microg.org/#faq7
| jesprenj wrote:
| Speaking of signatures, google play now requires developers
| to submit the private keys we used to sign apps with.
| Without submitting a key I can't issue updates. Out of
| protest I stopped pushing updates to apps via Google Play.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Yes, that is fairly concerning. The last news I had about
| this was that using Google Play Signing (their key escrow
| and app signing service) was only mandatory for new apps
| as of August 2021. Not sure if that has changed recently.
| But everyone can see it coming a mile away, that Google
| will only continue tightening that grip.
|
| To be honest, I understand the potentially good
| intentions behind Google's push to manage keys for app
| developers. It is not trivial to (1) keep private keys
| secure, and (2) not lose access to them over a long
| enough period of time. So Google can store them in HSMs
| in their datacenters and provide backups and access
| controls and such. But it also gives them the ability to
| deliver app updates with "extra stuff" for targeted
| individuals. See Figure 1 of [1]. That doesn't look very
| nice to me.
|
| [1] https://developer.android.com/studio/publish/app-
| signing
| nvr219 wrote:
| I've been using Waze this whole time
| Trias11 wrote:
| Waze is owned by google.
| pzumk wrote:
| I always liked Waze but I don't like Google. I've been
| blocking as many Google domains as possible but still kept
| some unblocked just to use Waze (and YouTube). Google changed
| something, Waze stopped working, I switched to Apple Maps. No
| regrets.
| mikece wrote:
| How much of your information does Google want? MORE!
|
| This is a big reason why I carry a Graphene OS phone... and
| searched eBay for a Garmin GPS -- that cannot phone home! -- for
| my car.
| peakaboo wrote:
| All information, and people are giving it to them for free.
| There is billions in dollar of profit from selling peoples data
| and the user gets nothing of that.
| acomjean wrote:
| To be fair, the user is getting a pretty amazing map/gps
| program.
|
| It it worth it? Are they completely upfront about the data
| they're harvesting?
|
| You can opt out. Stand alone gps is still available. Open
| Street maps is an amazing open source program too.
|
| My car has a 2010 gps. It works. It's not great but it's gets
| you close. In some ways I miss my old Tom Tom. It had the mr.
| T voice yelling at me where to go.
| christkv wrote:
| I just bought the Tom Tom app and paid for the maps I need.
| One of their big deals is privacy protection as no data is
| collected
| acomjean wrote:
| Forgot about the stand alone gps apps. And most phones
| have plenty of storage for those.
|
| I would love an app that would feed the data back into
| open street map.
| culanuchachamim wrote:
| Just to remind you, the user get the whole functionality of
| the app. That's the trade-off.
| fsflover wrote:
| > That's the trade-off.
|
| Only if the user is aware of that.
| google234123 wrote:
| Users aren't aware they are using Google Maps?
| jjulius wrote:
| No, most users are not aware of how much data they give
| up about themselves in order to get the whole
| functionality of the app.
| beeboop wrote:
| For me at least, Google sends me monthly (quarterly?)
| updates on my location history and prompts me to review
| it. I assume people get this by default, and so anyone
| checking their google account email would see these
| emails and open them to see literally every single
| destination of theirs is permanently saved. They don't
| exactly hide it.
|
| Not defending Google, they suck. But in this one instance
| I don't think it's that much of a dirty secret or
| anything. Just an open dirty behavior.
| asdff wrote:
| I've never gotten an email like that so its probably not
| a default setting.
| adamrezich wrote:
| I still remember filling out my Facebook profile back when it
| was very new (after it was open to everyone but before it
| even had the timeline) and I'm just flabbergasted at how much
| information I was willing to fork over as a naive child
| presented with a grid of form fields to fill out. crazy to
| see how it's only got more ridiculous over time. now Snapchat
| (which I'm about to convince my fiancee to uninstall so
| neither of us uses it anymore) is giving me notifications
| telling me about friends and family that I should add as
| friends, despite me never giving the app access to my
| contacts! I wish I could go back in time and convince my
| younger self about how bad things were going to get and why I
| should minimize my online footprint as much as possible.
| well, cat's out of the bag now...
| beeboop wrote:
| I remember being a teen when Google Health rolled out
| (checking online now they gave up on it in 2012, no
| surprise) and writing down the entirety of my medical
| history in it.
| vgeek wrote:
| I actually picked up a mint Garmin from a thrift store for $10
| for this reason. I always thought it was just me, I would turn
| GPS on and open maps on my LG v20, but would still get prompted
| about location accuracy _every_ time. I upgraded to a Moto One
| 5g and the verbiage is different enough that I was confused
| into approving because it seemed to imply maps just wanted to
| turn GPS on (even though I already turned GPS on), upon later
| checking, Google Location Accuracy was enabled.
| dTal wrote:
| They've always been coercive. You've never been able to use GPS
| passively without Play Services phoning your location home to
| Google, since the earliest days of Android. They would pop up a
| confirmation box asking you to agree to data collection, and if
| you declined, then GPS would remain off. It was a major influence
| in my decision to never, ever run a Googled Android on my phone.
| I just can't trust any company with that level of invasive
| surveillance. It's _my_ line in the sand.
| bkovacev wrote:
| What are some reliable alternatives for both iOS and Android? I'm
| unsure how are Apple Maps, but they were hideous a while back for
| Eastern Europe at least.
| jaegerpicker wrote:
| I use Apple Maps in Northern New England (Maine, NH, Vermont,
| Eastern Canada) and it's actually a little better than Google
| here in my experience. Apple Maps also fully supports no
| tracking and a better offline mode IMO. If you are on iOS and
| in a location that Apple supports I'd highly recommend it.
| valarauko wrote:
| Apple Maps has an offline mode?
| nkrisc wrote:
| I've used Apple Maps for a while now and haven't noticed any
| real difference in from when I used to use Google Maps. So for
| me: Google Maps and Apple Maps are utterly interchangeable.
| can16358p wrote:
| When that's the case Apple Maps would be a better choice as
| it doesn't try to suck all your privacy into its ad
| ecosystem.
| asdff wrote:
| My issue is it lacks a lot of local businesses. No point in
| using it if I have to go to google to find the business
| address anyhow.
| jamiepenney wrote:
| Same here - Apple Maps in New Zealand works just fine.
| mtmail wrote:
| https://organicmaps.app/ for iOS and Android. It's a fork of
| maps.me codebase. Maps.me added a crypto wallet and removed
| features.
| tqwhite wrote:
| I have always detested Google and am a longtime Apple user. I
| use Maps exclusively and like it perfectly well. Occasionally
| there is an update that makes it a bit dumber but, that always
| goes away.
|
| It's very difficult imagine the marginal benefit of a different
| app that would overcome their strong brand commitment to
| privacy for me.
| client4 wrote:
| I use here, they are pretty great
| devy wrote:
| Mapbox, HERE Maps, TomTom, MapQuest etc.
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| OsmAnd: https://osmand.net/ - open source, offline maps. Really
| great for outdoor sports, and has profiles for running, biking,
| skiing, etc, way better than Google Maps for that. Driving
| routes often give the same route as Google Maps for me. Some
| things are better on Google Maps though, such as live traffic
| and address lookup, so it depends what you want to use it for.
| beermonster wrote:
| And supports off-line navigation IIRC.
| morgunkorn wrote:
| I've been using Maps.me, it has great mapping material (OSM)
| and the navigation is decent. Been using it in the Caribbeans,
| GMaps and AMaps barely have street names there.
| shaicoleman wrote:
| Organic Maps is the open source fork of Maps.me. It's very
| similar, but better maintained, and has less shady stuff
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| I like Organic Maps, just hoping for Android auto support.
| vanous wrote:
| Are there ANY alternatives to the live traffic data that
| Google Maps or Waze collect and provide? I know how to
| get around but I want to make sure that I don't get stuck
| on the highway. I have been looking for an alternative
| for many years.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Organic maps seems good, and I did take it for a test
| navigation drive. Not sure how it is long-term though.
| fsflover wrote:
| Not as reliable as those but getting there (and with lifetime
| updates): https://puri.sm/products/librem-5 and
| https://pine64.org/pinephone.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| There are still places in the world where Apple Maps isn't
| great, but for 90% of people they're now as good for
| navigation, if not better (since they've built a data gathering
| operation).
|
| Last year I used Apple Maps for a 34,000 mile road trip. No
| significant issues.
| 6LLvveMx2koXfwn wrote:
| That's nearly 1.5 times around the globe.
| asdff wrote:
| The big pain point imo is that apple maps doesn't crawl for
| local business information as well as google. Many local
| businesses in LA do not show up on apple maps but have a
| presence on google maps. I wonder why apple maps engineers
| don't just crawl google maps and steal this data from them,
| I'm sure google would do the same.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Woah. That's quite the road trip! What was it?
| aloukissas wrote:
| I've switched to Apple Maps and it's been an improvement.
| Much better UI on CarPlay (subjective, but I find it to be
| easier to quickly read/decipher while driving). Still missing
| the "Yelp" part of Google Maps, there's not as much of a
| community there.
| babypuncher wrote:
| I switched to Apple Maps a couple years ago and was also
| pleasantly surprised how much it has improved.
|
| In the browser, you can effectively get Apple Maps through
| DuckDuckGo, as their map service is built on it. There is no
| meaningful way to get Apple Maps navigation on Android
| though, and I predict it will stay that way unless Apple
| decides to turn it into a paid service or changes their
| stance on selling user data.
| jlg23 wrote:
| HERE WeGo[0] works remarkably well here in the north of Africa,
| much better than google maps or TomTom.
|
| [0] https://wego.here.com/
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Watch out, Here Maps has the Facebook SDK malware embedded in
| it that will call home to Zuck on every app launch (at least)
| and send a device fingerprint and persistent identifier.
| walterbell wrote:
| Very unfortunate, since HERE maps allows offline maps.
|
| We need a public registry of apps that embed tracking SDKs.
|
| And iOS needs an outbound firewall, now that it is shipping
| an App Privacy Report.
| rkhleung wrote:
| Reference?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| My own testing on iOS by monitoring the network traffic -
| I don't see why Android would be any different.
|
| Edit: Exodus Privacy also confirms that Facebook malware
| is indeed present: https://reports.exodus-
| privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.here.ap...
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| Does not work on Android Auto, sadly.
|
| And they did a rewrite a short while back and it's not as
| good. I used to love it, but not so much anymore.
|
| Am hoping for Android Auto support to come to Organic Maps.
| can16358p wrote:
| Apple Maps was terrible and Google was ok.
|
| Fast forward a few years and Apple Maps is now ok (not super
| but definitely usable) and Google Maps tried to kill me a few
| times by guiding me to go opposite direction into a highway or
| into buildings or other wrong directions. The data is super
| inaccurate on Google Maps.
|
| In Apple Maps it at least shows no road instead of generating
| roads with completely wrong data.
|
| (I live in Turkey, YMMV)
| marcodiego wrote:
| I've been using OsmanAnd from f-droid and have been somewhat
| satisfied.
| [deleted]
| cush wrote:
| If you have an iPhone and haven't been using Apple Maps, it's
| basically on par now with Google Maps for navigation. I hadn't
| tried Apple Maps for years because of how bad it used to be, and
| was pleasantly surprised to find the maps are incredibly accurate
| and turn by turn navigation is rock solid. I haven't touched
| Google Maps in months, and this post is reminding me that it's
| time to just uninstall it
| app4soft wrote:
| > _I immediately installed Organic Maps, and I 'm sure there are
| loads of others as an option._
|
| Here are _OSM_ -based maps applications for _Android_.[0,1]
|
| Not all OSM-based Android apps listed on OpenStreetMap Wiki, so
| check out also maps apps in various F-Droid repos.[2]
|
| Also here are maps apps for Symbian[3,4] and Maemo[5].
|
| For other platforms there are also a lot of other apps.[6]
|
| [0]
| https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Android#OpenStreetMap_ap...
|
| [1]
| https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Android_ap...
|
| [2] https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid/
|
| [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Symbian
|
| [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/S60Maps
|
| [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software/Maemo
|
| [6] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software
| uneekname wrote:
| Does anyone have a favorite that has worked well for them?
| beermonster wrote:
| So how about OsmAnd[0] ?
|
| Supports fully offline mobile navigation.
|
| [0] https://osmand.net/
| npteljes wrote:
| Organic Maps is also cool. Forked from the then-OSS Maps.Me
| client, which, to be honest, I liked better than OsmAnd.
|
| https://f-droid.org/en/packages/app.organicmaps/
| solox3 wrote:
| I wish OsmAnd all the best, but ever since the app was created,
| its map rendering performance has been stuck in the 2010s, no
| matter how much faster our devices have gotten since then.
|
| There is justification for it for sure (see
| https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues?q=is%3Aissue+slow...
| for a few), and I love OSM out of principle, but as a product,
| it will remain my last resort until the user experience is
| tolerable.
| mappu wrote:
| If you have an older device, there is a is night and day
| difference between OsmAnd~ (the F-Droid rebuild) and Organic
| Maps (the latest maps.me fork). OsmAnd visibly stutters to
| load in new tiles whereas Organic Maps is perfectly smooth
| even when zooming quickly.
|
| OsmAnd is still much more feature-rich, though, so it's worth
| using if you have a more powerful device. Although i do worry
| about the battery impact.
| mkdirp wrote:
| I want to switch to osmand and I've installed it and Google
| Maps, but I've yet to be able to use osmand full time. mostly
| because it never seems to find a full and navigate to it
| properly.
|
| The best way I've been able to use it is typing the address's
| postcode and then finally look for the number or building like
| a barbarian, but even that doesn't always bring up the result.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| I don't like this being forced on you, but who the hell cares
| about wifi/bt SSID sniffing? What's so bad about collecting it?
|
| You are literally broadcasting it yourself and on most devices
| you can't even turn broadcasting off anymore.
| osrec wrote:
| On a localised basis, it is perhaps not so bad, however at a
| higher level, it allows you to piece together a huge amount of
| info, including grouping members of households etc.
|
| Honestly, it's not a great piece of info to be leaking, if you
| value your privacy.
| luckydata wrote:
| That requires processing the data in ways that would have to
| be disclosed as per law.
| ithinkso wrote:
| That only requires writing an apology for a bug after
| processing the data in this ways was found to be
| undisclosed, and then disclosing it with no opt-out.
| voakbasda wrote:
| My access points are inaccessible to the public. You would have
| to trespass deep into my property. No one has any business
| knowing anything about my network or devices here.
| luckydata wrote:
| so nobody will ever sniff them then. This is not an answer to
| the question.
| dTal wrote:
| _Obviously_ they 're concerned that their own phone will
| sniff them.
| legitster wrote:
| Yeah, an SSID is meant to be a publicly available address. You
| can always hide them if you want.
|
| Could you imagine the outrage if people found out Google was
| collecting and storing everyone's home address?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I'd prefer the combo of ssid, password and location to not all
| be known to the same single party.
| dessant wrote:
| Refusing service when the user does not consent to non-essential
| data sharing is illegal in the EU, and it also breaches Google
| Play's developer agreement. WiFi scanning is not essential to
| navigate with an app, and the least they could do to follow the
| law is to gracefully degrade the service if the user does not
| consent to share data about nearby devices, such as disabling
| traffic predictions.
|
| Of course Google's lawyers will argue that this data is in fact
| required for navigation, the same way some banks in the EU now
| claim "legitimate interest" when they send you a message about
| their credit card promotions with winnable prizes, after you've
| explicitly opted out from all marketing communications.
| loceng wrote:
| It arguably may allow the navigation to be more accurate, even
| if a tiny amount, though it obviously isn't strictly required
| since navigation works without the data.
| moritonal wrote:
| Can't believe I'm on this side of the debate, but at what point
| are we asking too much for free?
|
| Google provide Maps for free to an incredible accuracy and
| value. Unlike Apple, the user is welcome to use any other app,
| and yet chooses to use Google Maps.
|
| You could maybe argue that Google Maps is part of a package you
| bought the phone for, but realistically I think the solution is
| Google are just open about the use of data (which they are
| really) and offers a paid solution that doesn't track you.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| > and offers a paid solution that doesn't track you.
|
| Really? Never heard of that. Can you elaborate?
| gowld wrote:
| Selling organs is illegal. Maybe selling your personal /
| environmental data is too.
|
| Anyone can charge money for access to an app to compensate
| for value of data.
|
| > and offers a paid solution that doesn't track you.
|
| of Maps?
| pessimizer wrote:
| They don't have to offer it for free. But I bet that if they
| stopped, someone else would.
| akomtu wrote:
| I regret the last time I let it auto-update: that update had
| brought lots of junk UI and the annoying and equally useless
| "covid" reminder at the bottom. Since then I've disabled the
| auto-updates. If one day it refuses to work, I guess I'll just
| find some OSM-based alternative.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-01 23:00 UTC)