For hiking OSM blows Google out of the water. I'm surprised how detailed OSM is with random forest trails and shortcuts, resting spots, viewpoints, etc.
The main thing I use Google Maps for is searching for stores etc in cities. I hope such information becomes easier to contribute to OSM.
Perhaps a Pokémon Go style game for map updates could work? StreetComplete[0] is good, but the rewards are kind of boring.
Recall that Google as a company doesn't care about making people's lives easier and better, they care about inserting themselves as a middleman in aspects of your daily life and then trying to sell ads about it. They might invent a "talk to your grandma anytime" app and tell you it's because they love your sweet grandma, but the only things that will get attention and dev work are the bits that figure out how to sell you more stuff.
If you're a pedestrian in a city and you're walking between two locations with mailing addresses, then yes, Google is great. For anything outside of those boundaries, OSM is head and shoulders above Google Maps. GMaps is basically unusable for hikers and outdoorsmen because of the asinine offline UX and lack of topo data. I've also seen it make some outright unsafe routes when walking around suburbs and smaller towns.
Google fails pedestrians for the same reason it fails cyclists - it’s off road data is terrible & it’s not interested in fixing it.
In large cities, the roads are the only routes, so pedestrians can go OK with GMaps. Anywhere else & Google is prone to send you waltzing down a main road instead of the paths marked for actual pedestrian use in my experience. Same for cycling.
Thanks for trying, at least: You weren’t able to shift leviathan, but there’s no shame in that.
OSM is much, much better but I guess Google refuses to pull OSM data because it would require them to open up their own maps.