MAPS.ME to Organic Maps/OM Crisis

By early 2025, Organic Maps had grown from a small open-source revival into a widely respected navigation app. It had an engaged user base, over one hundred contributors, and an ecosystem shaped by volunteers who believed in the project’s stated values of transparency, openness, and community governance. However, beneath this momentum, unresolved tensions were building.

On March 21, 2025, a group of community contributors sent an open letter to the shareholders of Organic Maps OÜ, the Estonian-registered company that formally owned the project’s assets. This letter was later made public on April 16, 2025, and sparked what became the most significant governance crisis in the project’s short history.

The letter expressed deep concern over the lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making, financial management, and the future direction of the project. Contributors questioned whether their unpaid labor and donations had been used to increase the company’s valuation, with the possibility that Organic Maps might be sold or monetized—similar to what had occurred with MAPS.ME in the past.

The contributors urged the shareholders to restructure the project under a nonprofit model, or at least to transfer its assets to an entity aligned with community values. They emphasized the need for democratic governance, inclusive decision-making, financial disclosure, and a clear rejection of personal profit motives.

Beyond governance, the letter detailed internal shareholder disputes. Roman Tsisyk, one of the co-founders, had expressed support for the contributors' concerns and proposed dissolving the current company structure in favor of a community-led nonprofit. The other two primary stakeholders, Viktar Havaka (a.k.a. Viktor Govako) and Alexander Borsuk (a.k.a. Alexander Zolotarev), remained silent or dismissive, according to the letter.

These unresolved tensions had already begun to affect project operations. A conflict over repository access led to the temporary suspension of the Organic Maps GitHub organization, prompting a swift migration to a self-hosted Forgejo instance. Contributors viewed this as yet another signal of instability caused by centralized ownership.

The open letter also revealed several concerning episodes: a lack of communication around the hiring of a full-time developer, a secret affiliate partnership with a travel website, and a governance structure that allowed major decisions to be blocked by shareholder deadlock while still enabling unilateral control over day-to-day operations.

More seriously, the letter alleged that some donations had been used for personal expenses by shareholders, while contributors had no access to basic financial information.

The authors of the letter announced they were considering a community-led fork of Organic Maps if no satisfactory response was received. They launched communication channels under the tentative name CoMaps and established a deadline for updates. The hope, they said, was for reform—but they were prepared to rebuild if necessary.

This moment represented a turning point. It forced a public reckoning with the contradictions between the project’s open-source image and its private ownership structure. For many, it was a reminder of the risks involved in building public goods on foundations that remain privately controlled.