Pros of OsmAnd

• More extensive offline functionality, including advanced navigation features
• Greater customization options for map appearance and data display
• Larger and more active community, resulting in frequent updates and improvements

Cons of OsmAnd

• Steeper learning curve due to complex interface and numerous features
• Slower map rendering and navigation calculations compared to OMIM
• Larger app size and higher resource consumption

Code Comparison

OsmAnd (Java):

public class MapActivity extends ActionBarActivity {
    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.activity_map);
        // Initialize map view and controls
    }
}

OMIM (C++):

namespace map
{
class Framework
{
public:
  void ShowMap();
  void SetViewport(m2::PointD const & center, double zoom);
};
}

OsmAnd uses Java for its Android app, while OMIM primarily uses C++ for cross-platform development. OsmAnd's code structure is more Android-specific, whereas OMIM's codebase is designed for multi-platform support. OMIM's use of C++ may contribute to its faster performance in certain areas, while OsmAnd's Java implementation allows for easier integration with Android-specific features and libraries.

Pros of iD

• Web-based editor, accessible from any browser without installation
• User-friendly interface, suitable for both beginners and experienced mappers
• Frequent updates and active community support

Cons of iD

• Limited offline functionality compared to OMIM's robust offline capabilities
• Less comprehensive mapping features for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

OMIM (C++):

void Framework::ShowPlacePage(place_page::Info const & info, bool animated)
{
  m_work.GetGuiThread().PostTask([this, info, animated]()
  {
    GetPlatform().RunTask(Platform::Thread::Gui, [this, info, animated]()
    {
      m_currentPlacePageInfo = info;
      ShowPlacePageImpl(info, animated);
    });
  });
}

iD (JavaScript):

iD.modes.Browse = function(context) {
    var mode = {
        id: 'browse',
        button: 'browse',
        title: t('modes.browse.title'),
        description: t('modes.browse.description')
    };

    mode.enter = function() {
        context.history().checkpoint('entered browse mode');
        context.selection().call(context.behaviors.hover());
        context.ui().sidebar.select(null);
    };

    return mode;
};

The code snippets showcase different programming languages and approaches, with OMIM using C++ for native performance and iD utilizing JavaScript for web-based functionality.

Pros of mapbox-gl-native

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Wider platform support, including iOS, Android, and web
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of mapbox-gl-native

• Requires a Mapbox account and API key for full functionality
• More complex setup process for beginners
• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage

Code Comparison

omim:

#include "map/framework.hpp"

Framework framework;
framework.ShowCountry("USA");

mapbox-gl-native:

#include <mbgl/map/map.hpp>

mbgl::Map map(view);
map.setStyle(mbgl::style::Style("mapbox://styles/mapbox/streets-v11"));

Both repositories provide mapping solutions, but they differ in their approach and target audience. omim is more focused on offline mapping and navigation, while mapbox-gl-native offers a more comprehensive set of features for online mapping and customization. The code examples show that omim has a simpler API for basic operations, while mapbox-gl-native provides more granular control over map styling and rendering.

Pros of mapbox-gl-js

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Wider community support and active development
• Better performance for web-based applications

Cons of mapbox-gl-js

• Requires an API key and potentially incurs usage costs
• Less suitable for offline use cases
• More limited customization options for map data sources

Code Comparison

omim (C++):

void Framework::ShowTrack(kml::TrackId trackId)
{
  auto const & track = GetBookmarkManager().GetTrack(trackId);
  ShowTrackImpl(track);
}

mapbox-gl-js (JavaScript):

map.on('load', () => {
  map.addSource('route', {
    'type': 'geojson',
    'data': {
      'type': 'Feature',
      'properties': {},
      'geometry': {
        'type': 'LineString',
        'coordinates': [
          [-122.48369693756104, 37.83381888486939],
          [-122.48348236083984, 37.83317489144141]
        ]
      }
    }
  });
});

Both repositories offer mapping solutions, but omim is more focused on offline capabilities and native applications, while mapbox-gl-js is geared towards web-based mapping with extensive customization options. The code examples demonstrate the different approaches: omim uses C++ for native development, while mapbox-gl-js utilizes JavaScript for web integration.

Pros of OpenMapTiles

• More focused on vector tile generation and styling
• Extensive documentation and tutorials for users
• Active community with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of OpenMapTiles

• Limited to OpenStreetMap data, while OMIM supports multiple data sources
• Less comprehensive mobile app development features compared to OMIM
• Smaller scope, focusing primarily on map tiles rather than full navigation

Code Comparison

OMIM (C++):

void Framework::ShowPlacePage(place_page::Info const & info, bool animated)
{
  m_work.GetGuiThread().PostTask([this, info, animated]()
  {
    GetPlatform().RunTask(Platform::Thread::Gui, [this, info, animated]()
    {
      m_currentPlacePageInfo = info;
      ShowPlacePageImpl(info, animated);
    });
  });
}

OpenMapTiles (SQL):

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION layer_transportation(bbox geometry, zoom_level int)
RETURNS TABLE(osm_id bigint, geometry geometry, class text, ramp int, oneway int, brunnel text, service text) AS $$
    SELECT osm_id, geometry, class, ramp, oneway, brunnel, service
    FROM osm_transportation_merge_linestring_gen_z11
    WHERE zoom_level >= 11 AND geometry && bbox
    UNION ALL
    SELECT osm_id, geometry, class, ramp, oneway, brunnel, service
    FROM osm_transportation_merge_linestring
    WHERE zoom_level < 11 AND geometry && bbox;
$$ LANGUAGE SQL IMMUTABLE;

Pros of GraphHopper

• More focused on routing and navigation algorithms
• Better documentation and API reference
• Active community with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of GraphHopper

• Limited offline functionality compared to OMIM
• Less comprehensive mapping features
• Smaller ecosystem of related tools and applications

Code Comparison

OMIM (C++):

void Framework::ShowTrack(Track const & track)
{
  m_bmManager.GetEditSession().ShowTrack(track);
  m_drapeEngine->UpdateGpsTrackPoints(track);
}

GraphHopper (Java):

public void route(GHRequest req, Consumer<GHResponse> consumer) {
    GHResponse res = new GHResponse();
    List<Path> paths = getPaths(req, res);
    consumer.accept(res);
}

Summary

OMIM is a comprehensive mapping solution with strong offline capabilities, while GraphHopper focuses on efficient routing algorithms. OMIM offers a wider range of features for map rendering and manipulation, but GraphHopper excels in route planning and optimization. OMIM is primarily written in C++, which may provide better performance for mobile devices, while GraphHopper's Java codebase might be more accessible for web-based applications. Both projects have their strengths, and the choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your mapping or routing project.