The code used by the fork was never published. It was stolen from a private repository and a private server, and then published/used in the fork without the authors' approval. That's a serious legal issue.
The fork also took the new website design that was developed for Organic Maps even before the Organic Maps website was updated.
Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.
Hmm... This says otherwise, with detailed explanations and screenshots: [1][2]
It shows that you, biodranik, removed the MIT licence from the repo with a commit saying "No MIT yet, sorry". It says that the code had been licenced as MIT since 2021. It is not clear if you own the copyright to all the contributions since 2021, and therefore it is not clear if you are legally allowed to remove the MIT licence.
It also says that the fork was made from the repo in the state it was when you removed the MIT licence. Therefore it is a fork of an MIT project by someone who had legal access to the MIT-licenced code: it's legal.
> Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.
You don't say :-).
I was not entirely sure about the CoMaps vs Organic Maps situation, but this very comment of yours clearly favours CoMaps IMO. Or did I misunderstand something?
Roman supported the private repo and was aware of the temporary (last 3 days only) CF logs to address CDN abuse. However, several hours ago, he (or someone else using his account?) unexpectedly made the repository public without discussing it with the project's maintainers. As a result, his account rights were temporarily restricted to clarify the situation.
There is still no response from Roman regarding his motivation for ignoring the usual governing board rules. Previously, all similar important project decisions were always discussed with maintainers/active contributors before being executed.
I hope that we resolve this strange situation successfully soon.
Yeah I mean, of course technically that's not how it's supposed to be done, but if they initially added the code and the licence (the latter by mistake), then I can see how the internal narrative is "here's my code (that Roman has contributed to) and I accidentally added the licence to it - oops, let me remove that before we accidentally make it public".
Of course at that point they should have realised that they weren't the only author of the code any more and that Roman understandably would have the wrong idea. But I see how it's an easy mistake to make, and it would probably also have easily been resolved had Roman reached out about it, rather than just instantly making it public and implying nefarious behaviour ("quietly made a change...discovered by me").
Was that decision put to a vote like "all important project decisions" are? I assume it can't have been unless Roman is blatantly lying about only noticing it a few days later.
Just to clarify, is this Google Play update "upcoming" in that it is currently going through Google's policy review process in order to reinstate your app on Google Play? If so, what changes were made in this release to satisfy their policies?
I'm interested to see what technical hoops you're jumping through to get your app reinstated, if you don't mind sharing. As a developer myself I've had my "fun" with policy compliance and review processes. All the best either way, hope it gets reinstated soon!
Please make sure that you have up-to-date app and maps data, and tell us where you see cross-border routing issues. There's an easy way to report it from the app using "Report a bug" button in the About dialog.
IIRC, that was over a year ago near Oberstdorf, at the border between Austria and Germany. You could not get an on-foot route from the Kanzelwand Bergstation[1] to Fellhorn[2]. The hiking path follows the border closely, crossing it multiple times. That location seems to work fine now.
Can you please send us more details about non-working search queries at support [at] organicmaps.app (or report it on our Github), considering that addresses or POIs that you're searching for are _present_ on osm.org ?
Will do! I am pretty sure the trails where I hike (mostly Andorra) are just not named is OSM. I thought about trying to update some myself, but there's a lot of overlapping trails, so it would be tough to get right. For example big stretches of the same trail might be both GR-7 and GR-11 and also a local Andorran trail number. I'd rather not do it than do it and get it wrong!
OSM Public Transport schemes support for buses and trams is not implemented yet, and it's not an easy task. Any volunteers to lead the development are welcome!
The fork also took the new website design that was developed for Organic Maps even before the Organic Maps website was updated.
Don't believe everything on the internet; there are many lies spread around.