9 ms·

This is competitive pressures at work, similarly to IBM and other's investment in Linux in the early 2000's as a way to place competitive pressure on MS/Windows

This is competitive pressures at work, similarly to IBM and other's investment in Linux in the early 2000's as a way to place competitive pressure on MS/Windows. If you're not the leader in the field, and won't be able to catch up just by investing, you try to make the leadership in the field (Google's) irrelevant. If the 2nd-best-by-small-margin base map info is open, having the best one isn't a competitive advantage anymore.

nugget 8y ago
Google recently hiked enterprise license fees for access to translation services pretty substantially. I wonder if we'll see similar competitive momentum in that market.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  Most likely, yes. But translation services are far easier to enter than mapping.
  - Scene_Cast2 8y ago
    Both are hard and are open problems.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      Sure, but very different. Mapping requires real-world operations, such as driving cars and taking pictures around the entire world, and doing it again and again. This is far more cost-intensive, both in upfront as in maintenance, than the translation problem. Software is easy. The real world is hard.
      - detuur 8y ago
        Which is exactly the point. Translation is a real-world problem. You need to actively go into the real world, find problem cases, make your translation software translate it, make your own translation, compare the translations, teach your software to translate it correctly, and hope that your approach is good enough. The real-world constraint of translation software is building a sizeable quality corpus of real-world text with real-world living human translators. We're lucky that the EU employs literally thousands of translators to publish identical texts across languages (for free!!), which has helped make European languages pretty much a solved problem in machine translation. But anything non-european is still hopelessly incomprehensible, simply because we don't have enough real-world data.
        webreac 8y ago
        Since they are using this strategy, translation of idioms is terrible. I have switched translate.
        logicallee 8y ago
        To what?
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    Far easier to enter, because so far there isn't a single one that is more than vaguely useful. As far as I'm aware, there isn't really much business at all for translation because at the end of the day, if you want it done anywhere close to correctly, you have to hire someone that actually knows both languages.
nickysielicki 8y ago
Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now. The reason that I still use Google maps is that it's fast and well-integrated with my phone, and it has a lot of added features on top of the actual mapping that makes it very useful --- things like location sharing when you're on a longer road trip, creating a notification on your phone to route to an address from your browser, live traffic information, road closures, and business reviews. In terms of the actual data, though, the details available on OSM puts Google's data to shame. I've been trying to get Google to fix an incorrect path drawn at a state park that I frequent. I've submitted an alternative route twice now, but it's been denied twice with little explanation. The path is a loop, but Google has it missing half of the loop, off by an eighth of a mile or so, and has it drawn where it cuts through private property. In contrast, OSM's data is completely spot on with what my GPS shows. The park is in a tourist area, and I go to this park often enough that I've actually ran into multiple people visiting who have been standing on the trail with Google Maps open on their phone, thinking they've made a wrong turn. I've experienced the same thing at GNP in Montana, BWCA in Minnesota/Canada, and all along the Richardson Highway in Alaska. If you're in a rural area or on public land, OSM data is the best available --- even better than what a ranger station would sell you.
- BrandoElFollito 8y ago
  I once reported an issue with a stadium in my city. I bike in front of it twice a day. The issue was that it was licated on the wrong side of the road. They said that they checked and it is ok. I asked them how they did this because, well, I actually see the place twice a day. They said that they have ways to check (or smthg like that). I then sent M their own stree view link and screenshot. Not good enough. So I have up, I do not need the gps to bike there twice a day. Two years later, suddenly it was approved. All my corrections are now approved automatically (within an hour or so) so they may have improved. I also told them to check on OSM where I also updated some information about the surroundings :)
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now. I'm sure that, for whatever product in the world, you can find a subset of people in the world who will swear that such product is, in they experience, the best in the world.
another-cuppa 8y ago
Google does not have the best base map info. OSM may well be the best global base map, actually. Google's advantage is their applications that use the data.
- golfer 8y ago
  Citation please? What do base your statement of fact on?
  - seren 8y ago
    OSM is generally richer in term of what can be documented. For example, you can describe a bench, how many seat it has, what color is it, is it in metal, wood or stone, and so on. This is not necessarily displayed on osm.org, but could be on a more specialized app using osm dataset. For example compare the two following areas : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/41.88846/12.49110 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/41.88846/12.49110 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8884227,12.4916715,17.54z https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8884227,12.4916715,17.54z Google Maps is lacking some details inside the park, you don't have any path, fence, grass, water tap, bench or bin. The issue for OSM is that some less popular areas are totally barren.
    - kqr 8y ago
      Also note that the osm.org bitmap tiles do not, in general, contain all information OSM has about an area. Things like future roads, hedges, etc. may not be shown.
    - diegoperini 8y ago
      Not that I don't believe in your claim (I really prefer to live in world where OSM is better) but isn't how you form your argument is a kind of confirmation bias?
MintPattern 8y ago
What are some OSM-based mobile apps that I can compare against Google with?
- sabas_ge 8y ago
  In what area? OSM data cover lots of use cases. For navigation on Android check out Maps.me or Osmand.

nugget 8y ago

Google recently hiked enterprise license fees for access to translation services pretty substantially. I wonder if we'll see similar competitive momentum in that market.

ucaetano 8y ago
Most likely, yes. But translation services are far easier to enter than mapping.
- Scene_Cast2 8y ago
  Both are hard and are open problems.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    Sure, but very different. Mapping requires real-world operations, such as driving cars and taking pictures around the entire world, and doing it again and again. This is far more cost-intensive, both in upfront as in maintenance, than the translation problem. Software is easy. The real world is hard.
    - detuur 8y ago
      Which is exactly the point. Translation is a real-world problem. You need to actively go into the real world, find problem cases, make your translation software translate it, make your own translation, compare the translations, teach your software to translate it correctly, and hope that your approach is good enough. The real-world constraint of translation software is building a sizeable quality corpus of real-world text with real-world living human translators. We're lucky that the EU employs literally thousands of translators to publish identical texts across languages (for free!!), which has helped make European languages pretty much a solved problem in machine translation. But anything non-european is still hopelessly incomprehensible, simply because we don't have enough real-world data.
      - webreac 8y ago
        Since they are using this strategy, translation of idioms is terrible. I have switched translate.
        logicallee 8y ago
        To what?
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  Far easier to enter, because so far there isn't a single one that is more than vaguely useful. As far as I'm aware, there isn't really much business at all for translation because at the end of the day, if you want it done anywhere close to correctly, you have to hire someone that actually knows both languages.

nickysielicki 8y ago

Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now. The reason that I still use Google maps is that it's fast and well-integrated with my phone, and it has a lot of added features on top of the actual mapping that makes it very useful --- things like location sharing when you're on a longer road trip, creating a notification on your phone to route to an address from your browser, live traffic information, road closures, and business reviews. In terms of the actual data, though, the details available on OSM puts Google's data to shame. I've been trying to get Google to fix an incorrect path drawn at a state park that I frequent. I've submitted an alternative route twice now, but it's been denied twice with little explanation. The path is a loop, but Google has it missing half of the loop, off by an eighth of a mile or so, and has it drawn where it cuts through private property. In contrast, OSM's data is completely spot on with what my GPS shows. The park is in a tourist area, and I go to this park often enough that I've actually ran into multiple people visiting who have been standing on the trail with Google Maps open on their phone, thinking they've made a wrong turn. I've experienced the same thing at GNP in Montana, BWCA in Minnesota/Canada, and all along the Richardson Highway in Alaska. If you're in a rural area or on public land, OSM data is the best available --- even better than what a ranger station would sell you.

BrandoElFollito 8y ago
I once reported an issue with a stadium in my city. I bike in front of it twice a day. The issue was that it was licated on the wrong side of the road. They said that they checked and it is ok. I asked them how they did this because, well, I actually see the place twice a day. They said that they have ways to check (or smthg like that). I then sent M their own stree view link and screenshot. Not good enough. So I have up, I do not need the gps to bike there twice a day. Two years later, suddenly it was approved. All my corrections are now approved automatically (within an hour or so) so they may have improved. I also told them to check on OSM where I also updated some information about the surroundings :)
ucaetano 8y ago
> Second best? At least in my experience, OSM data is leaps and bounds better than Google Maps in every way possible, and it has been that way for a couple years now. I'm sure that, for whatever product in the world, you can find a subset of people in the world who will swear that such product is, in they experience, the best in the world.

another-cuppa 8y ago

Google does not have the best base map info. OSM may well be the best global base map, actually. Google's advantage is their applications that use the data.

golfer 8y ago
Citation please? What do base your statement of fact on?
- seren 8y ago
  OSM is generally richer in term of what can be documented. For example, you can describe a bench, how many seat it has, what color is it, is it in metal, wood or stone, and so on. This is not necessarily displayed on osm.org, but could be on a more specialized app using osm dataset. For example compare the two following areas : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/41.88846/12.49110 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/41.88846/12.49110 https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8884227,12.4916715,17.54z https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8884227,12.4916715,17.54z Google Maps is lacking some details inside the park, you don't have any path, fence, grass, water tap, bench or bin. The issue for OSM is that some less popular areas are totally barren.
  - kqr 8y ago
    Also note that the osm.org bitmap tiles do not, in general, contain all information OSM has about an area. Things like future roads, hedges, etc. may not be shown.
  - diegoperini 8y ago
    Not that I don't believe in your claim (I really prefer to live in world where OSM is better) but isn't how you form your argument is a kind of confirmation bias?

MintPattern 8y ago

What are some OSM-based mobile apps that I can compare against Google with?

sabas_ge 8y ago
In what area? OSM data cover lots of use cases. For navigation on Android check out Maps.me or Osmand.