That’s interesting. Apart from the pathfinding, Osmand behaves kind of sluggish for me and I had to get used to the UI/UX which can be overwhelming at first (even for tech savy people). But therefor its also a lot more sophisticated and feature complete which I also like.
To each their own, maybe even both ;)
Thanks for the great writeup! Some of your Issues may be fixable, others stem from the fact that its sadly an alternative OS developed by a hand full of people compared to a multi billion dollar corp. But trying out new things and seeing true progression in development can be exciting too / make up for the inconveniences. In the long run this project can’t stay dependant on google, since they make their money from data and not hardware, and one of GrapheneOSs main purposes is to remove that source of income i guess. Also google is known to kill their products out of nowhere. Anyways:
Those do not have to cancel each other out necessarily. The open and modular design of Application APIs in AOSP lets the user decide which way they want to interact with the devices they own compared to the walled garden. Graphene does an excellent job by leveraging this design with further encapsulation while focusing on baseline compatibility and keeping up with google. Sadly the last one is a difficult task, so some features may take their time, while others we may never see.