Stop Google's Exploitation of Open Communities
brainoff.com
brainoff.com
Google Map Maker is a map crowd-sourcing project which was originally targeted at countries with poor commercial map coverage. It produces a closed end product [0].
OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a map crowd-sourcing project which produces an end product with an open data license.
Advantages of Map Maker include that Google can create maps derived from commercial satellite imagery products, Google has better mapping infrastructure, and maps are eventually integrated into Google Maps.
Disadvantages of Map Maker include a closed data license, restrictions on use (for example, no competing with Google), and a more opaque editing process.
Meanwhile, OSM has an open license (albeit a controversial one) and a broad contributor ecosystem. For example, Yahoo! has been generous in hosting satellite imagery for use by OSM for crowd-sourced mapping.
The OSM community has also been particularly involved in creating maps in disaster and humanitarian situations, such as after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
After the Haiti earthquake, there was some controversy over whether to use Map Maker and OSM among aid groups, NGOs, etc. [1] The restrictions on use of Map Maker data was a key concern.
[0] http://www.edparsons.com/2008/06/what-map-maker-is-is-not/
[1] Background: http://geosquan.blogspot.com/2010/01/haitian-earthquake-emph...
Not saying that's the way it is - but it's important to keep in mind that they are not always the 'do no evil' company so many blindly accept them to be.
http://friendfeed.com/embed/badge/mikelmaron . . .
It took 4s to load, and the page was unreadable until it did.also, is anyone still using ff?
[edit: 'ff' meant friendfeed, thought it was clear from context]
The argument that MapMaker is harmful to open source efforts has a bit more merit. With MapMaker users contribute mapping information for free without the ability to actually make use of that data later on. OpenStreetMaps on the other hand provides a Creative Commons license for all of the map data.
Imagine if Google held code sprints for it's commercial products and enticed people with t-shirts and bottled water, keeping their work for commercial use? Wouldn't you rather have those people participate in an open source project so that their volunteered time could be used by all rather than just Google?
The problem is they're directly copying open data communities, and restricting the resulting data.
Mikel is a very prominent member of OpenStreetMap, which was largely credited with the mapping of Haiti after the earthquake. It may come off as a rant on first read, but he's not making exaggerated claims.
Could you clarify that a bit for me please? It was unclear to me in the original as well. Is Google copying the data generated by open communities, then closing it with a restrictive license? Or is it copying the idea of community-generated maps?
One's an interesting story worth discussing. The other is silly; community-sourced maps is a fairly obvious idea.
Seen from that point of view and taking into account that Google has a history of censoring maps, I think it's not that silly an argument.
However, if the original article is correct in that Google misleads volunteers, then I hope his post helps correct that.
if someone has huge visibility, they can leverage it to gain more volunteer time at the expense of competing on platform & terms.
However the real problem is how G glosses over the particulars of their business practices, and paints them in the light of community projects. That's deceptive and damaging, not to OSM, but to communities unaware of the obscure details of data and API licensing.
1) Google paying attention to a community is far more attractive than a bunch of open source guys.
2) Google Maps's UI is much better than Open Street Maps'.
The first is hard to fix, unless some open consortium showers attention on communities.
The second should be solvable by following the dictates of a couple of highly qualified designers who have much sharper eyes than 41Latitude.com, which already does a great job.
And using all the data you and others provided to google, but in an offline manner is illegal.
I'd be very curious to see an updated reason given - I don't think Google moves quite slowly enough for "we're just not happy with the quality of the data quite yet" to hold any water 2.5 years after they first claim so.
If OSM wants to have the data they should start initiatives in Africa to do this.
As far as 'copying' OSM, isn't OSM 'open source'? If Google is violating their license that's one thing, but it sounds like they are copying ideas not protected by law, or within the framework of the licensing agreement.