+1 for OpenStreetMap. The GMaps coverage in most remote areas I’ve been to is horrible. Often, the places are mapped outright wrong, kilometres from the actual location. There’s more private businesses than natural features on the maps. Nothing against businesses but that’s not what I’m after when hiking or taking photos of wildlife.
The use of the satellite imagery is somewhat murky. If I’m at a new location, the satellite image does not tell me much. The names, streams, map markers like tables, caves, peaks, etc. do.
I’d rather mark at least one GPS location and confirm later on the desktop. My usual plant locations are mostly in a circle with a ~30km diameter, so the precise location is not that important.
OSM editors, however, (including Vespucci, the mobile one) do have a choice of dozens of satellite imagery providers, including aerial photography.
I like the ability to improve the map if I can, at the same time. Which I often do. In that regard, I find inaturalist complimentary - mapping the wildlife.
The policies and prices obviously change, so I’ll add the link to Mapbox pricing below. Simply because I saw it in quite a few apps and Web sites.
https://www.mapbox.com/pricing/#maps
As for the localisation, OSM should have more, not less, localisation options, for all I know. This could be a feature of the apps that use offline maps, perhaps.
Recently, the privacy concerns have become more important. In that respect, we should all understand that Google is getting their fair share in return for a “free” service. It may not cost money but it is not free.
Clearly, the more mapping options the better.
My experience in the last 20 years of hiking with OsmAnd has been such that I have not even opened Google Maps in a browser in years. The mobile app I haven’t had for even longer.