When building a location-based application, I needed to implement a feature that would allow users to click on a map and retrieve coordinates. What seemed like a straightforward requirement turned into an exploration of different mapping solutions and their inherent trade-offs.
The Google Maps Temptation
My initial instinct was to leverage Google Maps - it's familiar to users and provides excellent search functionality. On the web version, Google Maps generates URLs like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+Seoul+Tower/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x357ca257a88e6aa9:0x5cf8577c2e7982a5!8m2!3d37.5511694!4d126.9882266!16zL20vMDJxcGYx?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDkwMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
These URLs contain location data and place IDs that can be parsed for coordinates. However, on mobile devices, you can't directly access these URLs. Instead, the share function provides short links like:
https://naver.me/xZjKJ9SA
While these can be resolved through redirects to get the full URL, this introduces latency - an acceptable trade-off for the familiar Google Maps experience.
The Stability Problem
The real showstopper wasn't the user experience or performance concerns. It was stability. The URL structure I was parsing wasn't a JSON API response or official documentation - it was essentially reverse-engineering Google's internal URL format.
This approach had several red flags:
- No guarantees about URL format consistency
- Not an official API endpoint
- Could break without notice
- Not sustainable for a production service
Back to Basics: OpenStreetMap + Leaflet
Ultimately, I reverted to a more traditional approach using OpenStreetMap with Leaflet. While this solution has its limitations:
Cons:
- Search functionality isn't as robust as Google Maps
- Less polished UI compared to Google's interface
Pros:
- Fast and responsive
- Highly customizable
- Stable and predictable APIs
- Cost-effective
Building Resilient Systems
Even OpenStreetMap isn't bulletproof. That's why I implemented both solutions - the Google Maps workaround as a backup to the primary OpenStreetMap implementation. This redundancy ensures service continuity if either solution fails.
Key Takeaways
This experience reinforced several important principles:
- Nothing is perfectly stable - Build redundancy into your system with multiple fallback options
- Avoid dependencies on unofficial APIs - Reverse-engineering existing services may seem clever, but it's a maintenance nightmare
- Purpose-built tools often win - Sometimes combining developer-focused tools to build custom components is more reliable than trying to hack existing consumer products
When building production systems, it's tempting to take shortcuts by leveraging popular services in unintended ways. However, the short-term gains often lead to long-term technical debt. Sometimes the boring, stable solution is the right choice.
What mapping solutions have you used in your projects? Have you faced similar trade-offs between familiarity and stability?
Top comments (0)