Justin O'Beirne's argument is essentially that Google Maps is much better at being Google Maps than any other map provider.
Which is true, but Google doesn't get to define "maps".
Indeed, Google Maps as expounded by Mr O'Beirne is the very antithesis of OSM. He argues that Google is unstoppable because of its technology: that it can derive building shapes, heights, etc. from imagery much better than anyone else can.
That's almost certainly true (though Facebook is doing interesting ML-based stuff in this area with OSM) but it's not what OSM is. If Google is the apotheosis of technology, OSM is the apotheosis of human curiosity. It's the collected works of everyone with a particular interest that can be recorded geographically. You're interested in cycle routes? Add them in. Long-distance hiking paths? Go for it. Detailed coverage of the area where you live? We'd love to have you.
So for cycle paths, for long-distance hikes, for areas where we have committed contributors, OSM is streets ahead of Google. It doesn't always work. We struggle with stuff that no-one is interested in (principally addressing, which is just insanely boring to survey) and in areas where people aren't motivated to add stuff (basically, poor areas: OSM is a very middle-class pursuit and this is our biggest problem by a long way). Still, OSM is pretty much the opposite of Google Maps, and any comparison will fall down on that.
(Footnote: in this regard, Google's biggest advantage is that they get to draw on the entire Google search corpus. For POIs, that can be the equal of the best OSM can do, and I don't think we can easily match it. That said, Google hasn't yet worked out how to scrape linear/polygon data, and their attempt at mobilising a community to do this - Google Map Maker - ended in fairly spectacular failure.)
Which is true, but Google doesn't get to define "maps".
Indeed, Google Maps as expounded by Mr O'Beirne is the very antithesis of OSM. He argues that Google is unstoppable because of its technology: that it can derive building shapes, heights, etc. from imagery much better than anyone else can.
That's almost certainly true (though Facebook is doing interesting ML-based stuff in this area with OSM) but it's not what OSM is. If Google is the apotheosis of technology, OSM is the apotheosis of human curiosity. It's the collected works of everyone with a particular interest that can be recorded geographically. You're interested in cycle routes? Add them in. Long-distance hiking paths? Go for it. Detailed coverage of the area where you live? We'd love to have you.
So for cycle paths, for long-distance hikes, for areas where we have committed contributors, OSM is streets ahead of Google. It doesn't always work. We struggle with stuff that no-one is interested in (principally addressing, which is just insanely boring to survey) and in areas where people aren't motivated to add stuff (basically, poor areas: OSM is a very middle-class pursuit and this is our biggest problem by a long way). Still, OSM is pretty much the opposite of Google Maps, and any comparison will fall down on that.
(Footnote: in this regard, Google's biggest advantage is that they get to draw on the entire Google search corpus. For POIs, that can be the equal of the best OSM can do, and I don't think we can easily match it. That said, Google hasn't yet worked out how to scrape linear/polygon data, and their attempt at mobilising a community to do this - Google Map Maker - ended in fairly spectacular failure.)