Best is in the eye of beholder. As for amount of detail, accuracy, speed of updates and speed of response to such vandalism, OSM seems much better to me (at least judging by its European coverage, don't know how good it's in your location). No Street View? That's acceptable for me.
In Britain and France, OSM is very good. In NL and DE, it is amazing. In the US, it is okay.
It sort of depends on the user community that edits it. OSM is used heavily by the cycling community who want to put all the off-road cycle paths and so on onto the map. And it's used by hikers and wheelchair users and a bunch of other subcommunities who want to make it good for them.
In the US, there isn't such a big community of fanatical cyclists and so on, so less need for alternatives to commercial maps like Google and Apple.
True. But the "no lone zone" is not a solution, merely a mitigation tactic, and a simple one at that. There's always a way around any obstacle; this would make such (nb extremely rare) events harder to pull.
No, no, no, no. There is no technical solution to this non-technical issue. I understand the frustration of "but surely there MUST be a scriptable way out of this," but IMNSHO there isn't (short of strong AI).
Except that strong AI is not current technology, or even near-future technology. In other words, "hmm, this wouldn't be a problem if only we could do abracadabra and solve it with magic; therefore it's not a problem. We can't do abracadabra, and hence can't solve it this way? La la la, I can't hear you!"
(Not sure I'd call that a technical solution, but let's assume so.)
We could make planes fly themselves today. This is (mostly) how military drones work. On a couple of my tours, we worked with drones that flew themselves almost completely. My best friend in the universe reenlisted just to fly them, and they fly themselves for most of their missions.
Trust me: Planes could fly themselves using today's technology.
Emphasis on almost. I'm not going to reiterate what's been said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9289225 , so just the TL;DR version: in case of major trouble, a CFIT of an unoccupied vehicle is a viable safety option, for that 1% that almost works. Try that with an airplane full of people...and you would become a terrorist. Tiny, tiny difference, nothing to worry about.
Now you have two problems: instead of worrying about rogue pilots, you have to worry about rogue pilots and rogue remote control. Oh, and latency in remote control is also a nice thing to have. And signal loss. And jamming. So, five problems (actually, that's just a random sample).
The chance that multiple operators in a collective are actively abusing their control (and try to crash the plane) is decreasing in probability. History shows that such actions are usually performed by individuals. Even high latencies would not have prevented a successful intervention in this case (they've had a window of about 8 minutes for an intervention). Jamming is a possibility and an issue with the current communication systems the pilots already rely on.
Without trying to be a luddite, what happens in a self-driving car crash? That is, in court, not physically. This is yet to be tested; also, what happens in a meaningful concentration of autonomous vehicles? I'd wait at least for these to be tested before declaring autonomous vehicles "essential."
(Note that I didn't mention anything about webservers, or Internet; are you sure the in-flight entertainment systems are separated from the control network by anything else than a firewall rule? See other embedded systems, and how secure they are. Start with...IDK, Toyota's gas pedal code, see how well such safety-critical code was written: https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman14_toyota_ua_... )
Well, the problem with current state-of-the-art flight automation is that it can deal well with routine, repetitive tasks. What it fails at are corner cases (cf. US Airways Flight 1549), and self-diagnostics (sensor readings are inconsistent with current flight profile, e.g. Air France 447). In such cases, what you need is intelligence, not automatics.
This makes your argument another case of "let's assume we have strong AI; then pilotless aviation is easy-peasy." In other words, one of your unstated assumptions is still firmly in the realm of science fiction.
Full disclosure of the vulnerability revealed by the Google team zero implicate Windows update mechanism originally devised to allow flyers to play online with their premium ultimate+ Live account. (where would we be without a bit of Microsoft hate? ....)