3 ms·
"They are specifically targetting govts and NGOs, offering to “map their country for free”, but keeping the results." The problem is they're directly copying o
by nym 16y ago
"They are specifically targetting govts and NGOs, offering to “map their country for free”, but keeping the results."
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.
- jerf 16y ago"The problem is they're directly copying open data communities" 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.
- ambiguity 16y agoThey are only copying the idea of a crowdsourced map.
- andos 16y agoI believe the problem is more like using their weight as a company to "steal" resources (volunteers, data from governments and what not) from the open initiative to generate a product that is closed. 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.
- warrenwilkinson 16y agoOSM doesn't own volunteer time. If the volunteers find Googles platform & terms more pleasing, then more power to them. However, if the original article is correct in that Google misleads volunteers, then I hope his post helps correct that.
- exit 16y agowhy are you accusing them of claiming they own volunteer time? if someone has huge visibility, they can leverage it to gain more volunteer time at the expense of competing on platform & terms.
- mikelmaron 16y agoThe idea of community sourced mapped didn't originate with OSM either. Like any good open source project, we freely credit our inspirations and direct sources. Google however has lifted so many ideas with complete denial of any deep conceptual connections. It only seems proper to acknowledge your influences. 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.
- nitrogen 16y agoIt seems to me that acknowledging influences can be incredibly dangerous in our presently litigious patent environment.