I stopped using Google Maps in Android Auto and switched to an open-source navigator that respects my privacy


Android Auto is all about convenience, and for a long time, that’s all I cared about. Google Maps and Waze work well enough that it’s easy to ignore what they’re doing in the background, right up until you look at the actual data categories they pull from your device. Once you see that list, going back to treating them like neutral tools gets a lot harder to do.

Plugging your phone into your car turns your dashboard into a tracking device

These apps collect way more data than they need to get you home

Plugging your phone into your car feels like second nature at this point. But connecting to Android Auto quietly turns your dashboard into something closer to a data collection device. For years, I have used big-name navigation apps without thinking twice. Instead, I should never have been treating them like simple tools instead of what they actually are.

These apps collect more information than they need to get you from point A to point B, especially when used together. For that convenience, you’re handing over a detailed picture of your behavior to companies built around monetizing it.

Out of 35 possible data categories, Google Maps pulls from 24 of them, and Waze from 21, according to research from Surfshark. That goes well beyond your location.

That means names, email addresses, phone numbers, physical addresses, search history, audio data, and photos, all tied directly to your identity. Turning off the obvious tracking settings doesn’t do much either. Google Maps seems to log your coordinates in the background, and Waze makes it kind of hard to turn off, to the point where people make Reddit threads about it.

After figuring out that these companies want your location badly, I realized I needed to make a change. The answer turned out to be open-source navigation apps built on OpenStreetMap that we all contribute to. Specifically, Organic Maps uses this, but if you prefer, you can use OsmAnd.

Both work offline, neither collects any data tied to your identity, and there are no advertising networks baked in. Getting them to display through Android Auto takes a bit of work since the platform tries to block apps that don’t come from the Play Store, but it’s doable.

Setting up these privacy apps takes a little prep work upfront

You just download the maps ahead of time to navigate completely offline

You need to set up OsmAnd or Organic Maps yourself. Both work by using maps you download ahead of time from OpenStreetMap, instead of streaming tiles on the fly. In Organic Maps, these come as highly compressed custom map files, which can go from a few dozen megabytes for a small region up to many gigabytes for an entire country.

You can grab them through the app on Wi-Fi or sideload them manually through a file manager. OsmAnd works the same way. Since the maps and the routing engine both live on your device, the app can calculate routes, give turn-by-turn directions, and reroute you on the spot without ever reaching out to a server.

You can download both OsmAnd and Organic Maps through the Google Play Store. From there, you can run them as you would with the regular Google Maps or Waze.

There may have been more you had to do a long time ago, but since both of these are on the Play Store right now, you won’t need to open developer mode or anything like it.

You will have to give up live traffic updates and business reviews

The trade-off is a quiet screen that never sells your data

OsmAnd showing the map in Las Vegas Credit: Jorge Aguilar / HowToGeek

Google Maps works well largely because millions of people use it at the same time, feeding it a constant stream of real-world speed and location data. Apps like Organic Maps and OsmAnd don’t have that. They work mostly offline, routing you based on posted speed limits and pre-downloaded road data.

None of them would know there’s a three-car pile-up half a mile ahead. OsmAnd lets you overlay traffic maps visually, but these apps mostly route you based on static, pre-downloaded road data rather than live updates. Unless you manually set up online routing servers or custom live scripts, the app won’t automatically find you a faster way around a sudden traffic jam.

You’d have to spot the jam yourself and deliberately leave the suggested route to force a recalculation.

The other noticeable gap is the information on businesses. Google Maps and Apple Maps have essentially become search engines with a map attached. You can pull up a restaurant, see its hours, read reviews, and call ahead without ever leaving the app.

OpenStreetMap, which runs on most open-source navigation apps, is genuinely excellent at mapping roads, trails, and geography, but it’s built by volunteers, so the local business listings are hit or miss.

ETAs can be optimistic too, since they’re based on speed limits instead of on what traffic is actually doing.

But these annoyances come with some genuine upsides. The app isn’t syncing to the cloud, serving you ads, or dropping sponsored pins into your route. You also won’t get those jarring mid-drive rerouting prompts that demand your attention right as you’re merging onto a highway.

The navigation just does what you tell it to do and stays out of your way.


It’s time to ditch the spying apps

Switching to open-source navigation isn’t a clean trade. You’re giving up live traffic data, and that’s a real cost on days when something goes wrong on the road ahead of you. There’s also the extra information Google Maps gives for businesses. If those things matter to you, they’re worth weighing before you make the switch. However, if what you want is an app that routes you without logging your behavior and selling it, Organic Maps and OsmAnd both do the job without asking for anything in return.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


TL;DR

India debates sovereign AI after the US forced Anthropic to kill Fable 5, with proposals for a $5B fund and calls to embrace open-source models.

When the US government ordered Anthropic to shut down Fable 5 and Mythos 5 on 12 June, the export control directive was aimed at restricting foreign nationals from accessing America’s most capable AI. In India, Anthropic’s second-largest market, it landed as a warning shot about what happens when your AI infrastructure runs on someone else’s politics.

The suspension cut off Indian developers and enterprises from Claude’s most advanced models overnight. India’s Claude run-rate revenue had doubled since October 2025, and Tata Consultancy Services had announced a partnership just one day earlier, on 11 June, to train 50,000 employees on Claude and build a dedicated Anthropic business unit. That deal is now in limbo.

The timing has turned what was already a simmering debate about AI sovereignty into a full strategic reckoning. Proposals that sounded ambitious a week ago now sound urgent.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

Mohandas Pai, former Infosys CFO and one of India’s most prominent tech investors, has called for a ₹50,000 crore (roughly $5 billion) annual sovereign AI fund. He has also proposed a ₹2 lakh crore (approximately $21 billion) credit guarantee to finance cloud infrastructure, hardware procurement, and semiconductor development. The figures dwarf the government’s existing commitment.

India approved its IndiaAI Mission in March 2024 with a budget of ₹10,372 crore, approximately $1.25 billion. The programme has deployed around 38,000 GPUs so far. Pai’s proposal would quadruple annual spending and add a credit backstop an order of magnitude larger.

Sridhar Vembu, the founder of Zoho, has gone further. He argued that India should embrace smaller and open-source models, including Chinese ones, rather than depend on American frontier systems that can be switched off by executive order. “Technology is the ultimate weapon,” Vembu said. “Globalization is dead and Bharat must find her own way ahead.

The argument has teeth because the suspension demonstrated exactly the vulnerability Vembu is describing. Amazon’s CEO reportedly triggered the government crackdown by telling Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that researchers had used Fable 5 to obtain information that could be used in cyberattacks. Anthropic called the action disproportionate, but compliance was immediate and global.

Policy expert Prasanto Roy put it bluntly: “American AI models are bound to American geopolitics.” For Indian enterprises that had built workflows around Claude, the lesson was that access to frontier AI is a privilege that can be revoked without notice, without consultation, and without regard for the commercial relationships it disrupts.

The Indian startup ecosystem is already adapting. Sarvam, a Bengaluru-based AI company, released 30-billion and 105-billion parameter open-source models at the India AI Impact Summit in 2026. Krutrim, founded by Ola’s Bhavish Aggarwal, has pivoted from building foundational models to providing cloud and AI infrastructure services, reporting ₹3 billion in revenue for fiscal year 2026.

Neither company is close to matching the capabilities of Fable 5 or Mythos 5. But the argument for sovereign AI was never about matching frontier performance immediately. It is about ensuring that the floor does not fall out when Washington makes a unilateral decision about who gets to use which models.

Aakrit Vaish, founder of the AI startup Activate, said the suspension “completely changes things” for the sovereign AI debate. Vijay Rayapati, CEO of Atomicwork, raised concerns about what the precedent means for Indian companies with multi-country teams that depend on American AI providers. If the US can shut off model access to enforce export controls, any country that relies on American AI is one policy decision away from disruption.

Not everyone agrees that India needs to build its own frontier models. Hemant Mohapatra, a partner at Lightspeed Venture Partners, argued that talent and compute access matter more than capital for building competitive AI. India has the engineering workforce, but the compute gap is significant, and closing it requires either massive domestic investment or continued access to foreign cloud infrastructure.

Anthropic opened a Bengaluru office as part of its India expansion, and the TCS partnership was designed to be a cornerstone of its enterprise strategy in the country. Whether those plans survive the suspension intact depends on how quickly Anthropic can restore access and whether Indian enterprises still trust a provider whose most capable models can vanish overnight.

The broader pattern is unmistakable. The US has spent four years tightening controls on AI technology, from chip export restrictions to model-level interventions. Each escalation pushes more countries toward the conclusion that dependence on American AI infrastructure carries political risk. India, with its 1.4 billion people and rapidly growing technology sector, is now asking whether it can afford that risk, and what it would cost to eliminate it.

The Opendoor layoffs in June 2026, which shut the company’s India office and affected roughly 250 employees, added another dimension. CEO Kaz Nejatian cited AI-native teams as the reason, suggesting that some US companies are using AI to reduce their reliance on Indian engineering talent at the same time that India is debating its reliance on American AI. The relationship is becoming less complementary and more competitive.

For now, the sovereign AI proposals remain proposals. Pai’s fund has no legislative vehicle, Vembu’s call for open-source adoption has no coordinated policy framework, and the IndiaAI Mission’s GPU deployment is still in early stages.

But the Anthropic suspension has done something that years of policy papers and conference speeches could not: it has given the sovereign AI movement a concrete, recent, and viscerally felt example of why dependence on foreign AI is a strategic liability. The debate is no longer theoretical.



Source link