{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihgmg4disei6mjdktjx3mwtbemzfib6yrdtyb24hq7orn4p4ojhci",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:haakkg7y3xdghcdmprxeexso/app.bsky.feed.post/3mot3cxq3te42"
  },
  "path": "/t/comaps-foss-navigation-organic-maps-fork/29557?page=8#post_154",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-21T18:53:11.000Z",
  "site": "https://discuss.privacyguides.net",
  "tags": [
    "lack of reputation",
    "trolling",
    "Accrescent",
    "licensing"
  ],
  "textContent": "peaceful_ferret_66:\n\n> With that said, is there anything preventing the listing of CoMaps on its own merits as of now?\n\nNot that I can find. There are 39 votes in favor of adding CoMaps. It better fulfills Privacy Guides’ open source criteria and has superior UI/UX according to most people in this thread. The only legitimate issue was the lack of reputation at the time, but CoMaps has been around for over a year now so I don’t think that concern applies much today IMO.\n\nMany of the other criticisms against CoMaps or support for Organic Maps consisted of trolling or off-topic discussions about Accrescent and licensing. I found it very strange how hard certain people have gone to bat for Organic Maps with a very aggressive or accusatory tone directed towards me and others. I don’t even use CoMaps but I guess whoever is left of the Organic Maps fan base must feel very strongly about their preferred maps app?",
  "title": "CoMaps (FOSS Navigation, Organic Maps fork)"
}