Should this be a map or 500 maps?

To save everyone a click, here's a summary of that argument: you might want Google Maps to let you ask for the "nicest" rather than the "quickest" route; that would systematically tend to send you through the fancier higher-income parts of town, and in the case of walking directions the effect (which would happen across the entire world) would be to shift foot traffic, and hence e.g. custom for shops, from poorer parts of town to richer parts of town, and that would be bad.

Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I think this is a silly argument for many reasons; here are a few of them. For walking directions through commercial parts of a city, practically everyone is going to choose "quickest" rather than "nicest" and they probably aren't going to stop in the shops along the way; for driving directions, moving traffic from poorer to richer parts is probably a net social-justice improvement; most people asking for "nicer" routes are probably more interested in e.g. avoiding major roads outside cities.

(I do think it's reasonable to ask: what would be the consequences for the world if we offered this feature? and sometimes to conclude that it would make things worse. But I can't say I find it very easy to believe that companies like Google do in fact generally make their decisions on this basis, given what most of those decisions look like.)

But, bad argument or not, and genuinely representative of how Google makes decisions or not, it isn't an argument for not letting people make more specific choices like "avoid this particular road" or "prefer this road when possible", nor for not showing cycle routes and hiking trails, nor for letting you keep the screen on without showing directions. It doesn't have anything to do with any of the things the grandparent comment was complaining that Google Maps doesn't let you do.

I guess it's possible that Kasey in fact argues against all forms of user customization in Google Maps on the grounds that users might customize Maps in ways that are socially harmful. It's even possible that she does so and it makes a difference. But there's nothing in her tweets linked above to suggest that she does, and it doesn't seem plausible to me that considerations like hers have much to do with a broad lack of customizability in Google Maps.

I have 7+ mapping apps that I use regularly. Usually I am using several at once and having to swap back and forth to figure out the information I need.

I really wish we had an interoperability protocol that allowed me to combine the data sets locked in each app. I would love to use only one map.

I think there is a strong argument that such a standardized protocol would allow people to currate and combine these datasets in their own way. While in one sense, it would mean there was just "one" map, but in another, there would be a plethora of maps, each tailored to an individual or purpose.

I am amused when movies show military situations where commanders draw on huge and otherwise pristine rollout maps. Are they going to be discarded after this one engagement? If not, shouldn't there be scribbles from prior uses?