4 ms·

The article is very weird. If the author doesn't understand the value of the aerial imagery (global) they have obviously never tried to license this stuff globa

The article is very weird. If the author doesn't understand the value of the aerial imagery (global) they have obviously never tried to license this stuff globally. That alone should give Microsoft "platinum" status. Secondly, you need users to justify investments in these products. Microsoft brings users. Now businesses and others start paying attention, updating their details etc.

zinekeller 5y ago
Genuinely it's really a pain. You're not just dealing with intellectual property issues, you're literally brushing with militaries (and different cartographic laws) in the process of licensing high-resolution (those which allows you to see streets and buildings) images. The fact that they were able to do license this, even if it's still restricted for commercial use (seriously, it's really not that easy) speaks volumes to Microsoft's plans on relying on OSM. (Note that cartographic restrictions are now slowly loosening up especially in the US, but we can't say that for sure in other countries like India and China.) By the way, that's also why Microsoft shies away from cartographic products except when maps are absolutely needed, they have encountered situations (for example, time zone maps and flag emojis) that Microsoft doesn't want to get involved in, and so avoids those if it's possible.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  It also probably had interesting internal politics. OSM data can be also used by competitors and it kind of admits that Bing Maps right now cannot compete with Google Maps at all. To the point that improving open data available to all is better. I really need to link https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ > most of the companies spending big money to develop open source software are doing it because it’s a good business strategy for them, not because they suddenly stopped believing in capitalism and fell in love with freedom-as-in-speech. and explains why it makes sense. See also a bit broader https://www.gwern.net/Complement https://www.gwern.net/Complement
CjMalone 5y ago
As is prefixed in the post, this was originally a private response to Daniel Aleksandersen's post about Google Maps [1]. It was a quick email, not a fully thought out article. I'm not a writer, and defiantly not an author. I understand the value that Microsoft brings via it's imagery, Map Builder and it's users. OpenStreetMap wouldn't be in the position it is today without Microsoft, and the other commercial interests involved in OSM. I want there involvement, I welcome it, and I'm grateful for it. I am a little soured by the value that I put into society (through contributing thousands of hours to OSM [2], and my day job), and the value I get back. This email wasn't meant to discus that, but I guess it underlays everything I ever do and say. [1] https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/maps-public-service.html https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/maps-public-service.html [2] https://www.hdyc.neis-one.org/?CjMalone https://www.hdyc.neis-one.org/?CjMalone

zinekeller 5y ago

Genuinely it's really a pain. You're not just dealing with intellectual property issues, you're literally brushing with militaries (and different cartographic laws) in the process of licensing high-resolution (those which allows you to see streets and buildings) images. The fact that they were able to do license this, even if it's still restricted for commercial use (seriously, it's really not that easy) speaks volumes to Microsoft's plans on relying on OSM. (Note that cartographic restrictions are now slowly loosening up especially in the US, but we can't say that for sure in other countries like India and China.) By the way, that's also why Microsoft shies away from cartographic products except when maps are absolutely needed, they have encountered situations (for example, time zone maps and flag emojis) that Microsoft doesn't want to get involved in, and so avoids those if it's possible.

matkoniecz 5y ago
It also probably had interesting internal politics. OSM data can be also used by competitors and it kind of admits that Bing Maps right now cannot compete with Google Maps at all. To the point that improving open data available to all is better. I really need to link https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ > most of the companies spending big money to develop open source software are doing it because it’s a good business strategy for them, not because they suddenly stopped believing in capitalism and fell in love with freedom-as-in-speech. and explains why it makes sense. See also a bit broader https://www.gwern.net/Complement https://www.gwern.net/Complement

CjMalone 5y ago

As is prefixed in the post, this was originally a private response to Daniel Aleksandersen's post about Google Maps [1]. It was a quick email, not a fully thought out article. I'm not a writer, and defiantly not an author. I understand the value that Microsoft brings via it's imagery, Map Builder and it's users. OpenStreetMap wouldn't be in the position it is today without Microsoft, and the other commercial interests involved in OSM. I want there involvement, I welcome it, and I'm grateful for it. I am a little soured by the value that I put into society (through contributing thousands of hours to OSM [2], and my day job), and the value I get back. This email wasn't meant to discus that, but I guess it underlays everything I ever do and say. [1] https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/maps-public-service.html https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/maps-public-service.html [2] https://www.hdyc.neis-one.org/?CjMalone https://www.hdyc.neis-one.org/?CjMalone