6 ms·

How long, one wonders, until Open Street Map becomes the ubiquitous standard? Could Google switch to using it, and feed into it themselves to improve its resul

How long, one wonders, until Open Street Map becomes the ubiquitous standard? Could Google switch to using it, and feed into it themselves to improve its results further?

nyellin 14y ago
Why would Google do that?
- AndrewDucker 14y ago
  I assume they're currently paying license fees, and spending lots of money on keeping their systems up to date. Switching to open data would hopefully reduce both factors.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    I routinely switch between 4 different map and map-based services (Google Maps for Streetview, Bing Maps for Ordnance Survey maps, OpenStreetMap for paths and Geograph for pictures overlayed on OS grid cells) - I'd love to have some way of combining these.
    - follower 14y ago
      Not sure in what context you want to combine them but OpenLayers enables maps from multiple services to be used together: http://openlayers.org/ http://openlayers.org/
      - arethuza 14y ago
        Sorry, I should have explained why I do all of that. I combine all of that data to try and come up with interesting routes to cycle - OpenStreetMap is great for detailed cycle path data, Streetview allows me to judge whether I want to cycle along a road (I prefer offroad) and Geograph is the closest you can get to an offroad Street View. And if I am going anywhere serious (well out of town) then I replace OpenStreetMap with OS maps from Bing.
    - micro_cam 14y ago
      Sounds like you are in the UK (Ordnance Survey) but I wrote a mashup to combine mapping layers and provide other utilities (slope analysis etc) for my own planing of off-road bike, hike and ski trips: http://www.hillmap.com http://www.hillmap.com It mostly covers the US and there are a lot of legal issues surrounding the different layers meaning it is difficult to run it as anything but a free site which may be why more people don't do this.
- majke 14y ago
  http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toc-mission http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toc-mission "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
OpenStreetMap just underwent a rather tortuous conversion from using Creative Commons to the ODBL (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/) I don't fully understand the ramifications, but it's possible that this was done so that companies like Google could build products on top of OSM data rather than re-invent the wheel, possibly in a parallel to GPL and LGPL or the split between Linux and thing like Tivo or Android built on top. From their relicencing FAQ: " If you distribute OSM data with other map data, you have to make the other data available; But if you create an "integrated experience" (e.g. mashup or cartography), the share-alike licence only applies to the map data. " http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License_Relicensing_FAQ#How_will_the_proposed_licence_benefit_OpenStreetMap.3F http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License_Rel...
- runn1ng 14y ago
  So, if I got it right, if Google uses OpenStreetMap, they will have to make their data available under ODBL? Good luck with that.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    I think under certain circumstances they'd only need to make the data that they used and/or improved available but to be honest the whole thing confuses me. Like the line between what's GPL'd linux and what's Android or proprietary Tivo code this is partly convention, partly case law, partly a gray area. Maybe, like with GPL'd linux on servers or APL'd Android on phones it'll fit neatly into Google's business plan, maybe they can firewall certain bits off with a bit of effort, or perhaps it'll never work, I don't really know for sure.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    That used to be my big caveat with ODBL too. Though the final version of the license differentiates between "Derivative Database" and "Collective Database". Effectively it seems that if your application uses OSM data as one layer, and non-OSM data as separate layers, it would make up a "Collective Database", and you'd only have to release changes to the OSM data itself. That's potentially a huge improvement. The problem there is there's a huge grey area as to what will be considered a Derivative Database vs. OSM data in a Collective Databases with other, proprietary databases. E.g. if the data in the properitary database contains road data that augments the OSM data, will the result of combining it with OSM data in a collection create a Collective Database or a Derivative Database? How well must the separate layers stand on their own before combining them with OSM data is "derivative". They're trying to walk a very fine line, and I suspect quite a few lawyers will make a decent amount of money interpreting that license for clients that wants to use OSM data but are worried about where the line goes.
albertsun 14y ago
The way Google is building out its maps data is way more sophisticated. Good look inside here: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google-builds-its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-go...
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  That's a strange article, almost certainly commissioned by Google as a PR opportunity to coincide with iOS6 maps, which I think misses most of the actual interesting stuff that Google brings to mapping (for example he talks about drawing a perfect circle for roundabouts as if this was some amazing feat on a computer? Compared with actually driving the whole world with a bunch of data capture devices strapped to the roof?) But most of the tools they talk about are available to OSM contributers and it's very odd for them to be highlighting Google's data-behind-the-map when that's exactly what you don't get from them, but do get from OSM: http://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/google-maps-and-openstreetmap-data-views-find-the-10-differences/ http://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/google-maps-and-openst...
ConstantineXVI 14y ago
Google won't dump their own maps for anyone else as long as they remain a competitive advantage. They're (thanks to recent events) clearly perceived as having some of the best maps in the business, as long as that remains so it's in their best interest to keep doing them in-house.
- nine_k 14y ago
  There's no need to dump Google's maps, these are wonderful in many respects. They could complement their maps with OSM's data where it is better, and there are cases when it is. How such data would be licensed and what OSM should ask in return is an interesting question.
  - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
    Technically and pragmatically speaking, tying in OSM data would be best for all involved. Politically, they wouldn't be able to claim the exclusivity they have now and they'd lose a giant bullet point vs. Apple (no matter how much OSM data they're actually using).
pav3l 14y ago
Not any time soon, their licenses are incompatible. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/lc88a/were_the_google_maps_team_ama/c2rhowb http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/lc88a/were_the_google_...
- AndrewDucker 14y ago
  OSM just changed their license. Possibly for this very reason...
  - mapmeld 14y ago
    From what I heard in 2011, the OSM license change was motivated by legal status of the data in the EU. Creative Commons is seen as an arts license and data could only be licensed and protected through an appropriate data license.
    - rmc 14y ago
      An USA. USA doesn't have 'sweat of the brow' aspect of copyright, so it's debatable if a 'collection of facts' (i.e. the OSM database) could be copyrightable in the USA.
bluthru 14y ago
It seems a bit hypocritical for Google to have and open source OS that gathers mapping data from a proprietary source. Down the road, I don't want Google to be the only one with enough mapping knowledge to have self-driving car tech. That doesn't seem like data that should be owned by a corporation.
- sneak 14y ago
  That corporation was the entity that spent the huge sums of money to acquire that data.
- BitMastro 14y ago
  I don's see how it could be hypocritical, but anyway.. 1)Google Maps is not part of the OS, but is a proprietary closed source application. 2)Nobody is stopping you from building a better system, or improving OpenStreetMap 3)Cartographers obviously have ownership of the maps they build, more so, they introduce errors to recognize unauthorized copies.
- icebraining 14y ago
  How is that hypocritical?
m_eiman 14y ago
Btw, did anyone else notice that Apple credits OSM contributors for map data in the new Maps? They seem to be merging a whole lot of different sources into that database.
draggnar 14y ago
Bing has added a open street maps layer, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the next iteration of the Nokia 3d maps (http://maps3d.svc.nokia.com/webgl/index.html http://maps3d.svc.nokia.com/webgl/index.html) which does not currently have street names or local listings. My question is, are they waiting for webgl to be on mobile?
- fpp 14y ago
  Support from Bing / MS to OpenStreetMap goes even further - at least in London where I'm participating in the OSM mapping they also provide Satellite images for the editing processes.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Bing allow OSM users to trace from their aerial imagery all over the world. Yahoo used to let OSM do it. Google never have.
- ernesth 14y ago
  I don't understand your chain of thoughts. Why would nokia be adding an openstreetmap overlay instead of a nokia maps one? > are they waiting for webgl to be on mobile? Are who waiting? You may not know that nokia not only sells cartography data to gps makers and online map services but also build and sells smartphones... Their current mobile maps, drive and city lens applications are really impressive.
  - draggnar 14y ago
    >why use OSM instead of nokia maps? would they use it if it's better than nokia in terms of local data? > who are waiting? This is what I was asking. Their webgl seems to be a big leap over google maps and I haven't seen it beyond the webgl demo. I wasn't sure if they were using this technology beyond this demonstration.
anonymouz 14y ago
In some places it sure as hell would improve Google Maps if they would (be able to?) include OSM data. Compare for example Sarajevo on Google Maps at http://goo.gl/maps/kc3yP http://goo.gl/maps/kc3yP to its OSM counterpart at http://osm.org/go/xfYWiLv8-- http://osm.org/go/xfYWiLv8-- .
- graue 14y ago
  Yeah, this looks pretty neglected by Google. Interesting comparison. I couldn't help noticing that the GMaps link loads instantly while this (much more useful) OSM link took nearly 20 seconds to fully load.
  - nine_k 14y ago
    Try reloading. I think g.maps code was already in your browser's cache, while OSM's was not.
  - rmc 14y ago
    Partially that's the obvious due to Google having, like a bajillion servers, and OSM having like 2 dozen. However the advantage of OSM is that it's the data, and you can render your own maps on your own hardware, and depending on your budget, make it as fast as possible.
- buro9 14y ago
  Even in the UK I still find Google has gaps where OSM does not. In a recent trip to Bristol I was staying at a guest house on Exchange Avenue: Google: https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bristol,+United+Kingdom&aq=0&oq=bristol&sll=43.856811,18.304939&sspn=0.17255,0.266075&vpsrc=6&g=sarajevo&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bristol,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.45384,-2.593739&spn=0.00233,0.004157&t=m&z=18 https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&#3... OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.454096&lon=-2.593978&zoom=18&layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.454096&lon=-2.59397... The truth lies somewhere between the various maps out there. In some places Google rules, in others OSM rules. Occasionally, neither rules and usually some local mapping does. I like that there's competition to keep all of them on their toes, and I very much like that one of the contenders is a community project.

How long, one wonders, until Open Street Map becomes the ubiquitous standard? Could Google switch to using it, and feed into it themselves to improve its results further?

nyellin 14y ago

Why would Google do that?

AndrewDucker 14y ago
I assume they're currently paying license fees, and spending lots of money on keeping their systems up to date. Switching to open data would hopefully reduce both factors.
- arethuza 14y ago
  I routinely switch between 4 different map and map-based services (Google Maps for Streetview, Bing Maps for Ordnance Survey maps, OpenStreetMap for paths and Geograph for pictures overlayed on OS grid cells) - I'd love to have some way of combining these.
  - follower 14y ago
    Not sure in what context you want to combine them but OpenLayers enables maps from multiple services to be used together: http://openlayers.org/ http://openlayers.org/
    - arethuza 14y ago
      Sorry, I should have explained why I do all of that. I combine all of that data to try and come up with interesting routes to cycle - OpenStreetMap is great for detailed cycle path data, Streetview allows me to judge whether I want to cycle along a road (I prefer offroad) and Geograph is the closest you can get to an offroad Street View. And if I am going anywhere serious (well out of town) then I replace OpenStreetMap with OS maps from Bing.
  - micro_cam 14y ago
    Sounds like you are in the UK (Ordnance Survey) but I wrote a mashup to combine mapping layers and provide other utilities (slope analysis etc) for my own planing of off-road bike, hike and ski trips: http://www.hillmap.com http://www.hillmap.com It mostly covers the US and there are a lot of legal issues surrounding the different layers meaning it is difficult to run it as anything but a free site which may be why more people don't do this.
majke 14y ago
http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toc-mission http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toc-mission "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

OpenStreetMap just underwent a rather tortuous conversion from using Creative Commons to the ODBL (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/) I don't fully understand the ramifications, but it's possible that this was done so that companies like Google could build products on top of OSM data rather than re-invent the wheel, possibly in a parallel to GPL and LGPL or the split between Linux and thing like Tivo or Android built on top. From their relicencing FAQ: " If you distribute OSM data with other map data, you have to make the other data available; But if you create an "integrated experience" (e.g. mashup or cartography), the share-alike licence only applies to the map data. " http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License_Relicensing_FAQ#How_will_the_proposed_licence_benefit_OpenStreetMap.3F http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License_Rel...

runn1ng 14y ago
So, if I got it right, if Google uses OpenStreetMap, they will have to make their data available under ODBL? Good luck with that.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  I think under certain circumstances they'd only need to make the data that they used and/or improved available but to be honest the whole thing confuses me. Like the line between what's GPL'd linux and what's Android or proprietary Tivo code this is partly convention, partly case law, partly a gray area. Maybe, like with GPL'd linux on servers or APL'd Android on phones it'll fit neatly into Google's business plan, maybe they can firewall certain bits off with a bit of effort, or perhaps it'll never work, I don't really know for sure.
- vidarh 14y ago
  That used to be my big caveat with ODBL too. Though the final version of the license differentiates between "Derivative Database" and "Collective Database". Effectively it seems that if your application uses OSM data as one layer, and non-OSM data as separate layers, it would make up a "Collective Database", and you'd only have to release changes to the OSM data itself. That's potentially a huge improvement. The problem there is there's a huge grey area as to what will be considered a Derivative Database vs. OSM data in a Collective Databases with other, proprietary databases. E.g. if the data in the properitary database contains road data that augments the OSM data, will the result of combining it with OSM data in a collection create a Collective Database or a Derivative Database? How well must the separate layers stand on their own before combining them with OSM data is "derivative". They're trying to walk a very fine line, and I suspect quite a few lawyers will make a decent amount of money interpreting that license for clients that wants to use OSM data but are worried about where the line goes.

albertsun 14y ago

The way Google is building out its maps data is way more sophisticated. Good look inside here: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google-builds-its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-go...

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
That's a strange article, almost certainly commissioned by Google as a PR opportunity to coincide with iOS6 maps, which I think misses most of the actual interesting stuff that Google brings to mapping (for example he talks about drawing a perfect circle for roundabouts as if this was some amazing feat on a computer? Compared with actually driving the whole world with a bunch of data capture devices strapped to the roof?) But most of the tools they talk about are available to OSM contributers and it's very odd for them to be highlighting Google's data-behind-the-map when that's exactly what you don't get from them, but do get from OSM: http://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/google-maps-and-openstreetmap-data-views-find-the-10-differences/ http://oegeo.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/google-maps-and-openst...

ConstantineXVI 14y ago

Google won't dump their own maps for anyone else as long as they remain a competitive advantage. They're (thanks to recent events) clearly perceived as having some of the best maps in the business, as long as that remains so it's in their best interest to keep doing them in-house.

nine_k 14y ago
There's no need to dump Google's maps, these are wonderful in many respects. They could complement their maps with OSM's data where it is better, and there are cases when it is. How such data would be licensed and what OSM should ask in return is an interesting question.
- ConstantineXVI 14y ago
  Technically and pragmatically speaking, tying in OSM data would be best for all involved. Politically, they wouldn't be able to claim the exclusivity they have now and they'd lose a giant bullet point vs. Apple (no matter how much OSM data they're actually using).

pav3l 14y ago

Not any time soon, their licenses are incompatible. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/lc88a/were_the_google_maps_team_ama/c2rhowb http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/lc88a/were_the_google_...

AndrewDucker 14y ago
OSM just changed their license. Possibly for this very reason...
- mapmeld 14y ago
  From what I heard in 2011, the OSM license change was motivated by legal status of the data in the EU. Creative Commons is seen as an arts license and data could only be licensed and protected through an appropriate data license.
  - rmc 14y ago
    An USA. USA doesn't have 'sweat of the brow' aspect of copyright, so it's debatable if a 'collection of facts' (i.e. the OSM database) could be copyrightable in the USA.

bluthru 14y ago

It seems a bit hypocritical for Google to have and open source OS that gathers mapping data from a proprietary source. Down the road, I don't want Google to be the only one with enough mapping knowledge to have self-driving car tech. That doesn't seem like data that should be owned by a corporation.

sneak 14y ago
That corporation was the entity that spent the huge sums of money to acquire that data.
BitMastro 14y ago
I don's see how it could be hypocritical, but anyway.. 1)Google Maps is not part of the OS, but is a proprietary closed source application. 2)Nobody is stopping you from building a better system, or improving OpenStreetMap 3)Cartographers obviously have ownership of the maps they build, more so, they introduce errors to recognize unauthorized copies.
icebraining 14y ago
How is that hypocritical?

m_eiman 14y ago

Btw, did anyone else notice that Apple credits OSM contributors for map data in the new Maps? They seem to be merging a whole lot of different sources into that database.

draggnar 14y ago

Bing has added a open street maps layer, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the next iteration of the Nokia 3d maps (http://maps3d.svc.nokia.com/webgl/index.html http://maps3d.svc.nokia.com/webgl/index.html) which does not currently have street names or local listings. My question is, are they waiting for webgl to be on mobile?

fpp 14y ago
Support from Bing / MS to OpenStreetMap goes even further - at least in London where I'm participating in the OSM mapping they also provide Satellite images for the editing processes.
- rmc 14y ago
  Bing allow OSM users to trace from their aerial imagery all over the world. Yahoo used to let OSM do it. Google never have.
ernesth 14y ago
I don't understand your chain of thoughts. Why would nokia be adding an openstreetmap overlay instead of a nokia maps one? > are they waiting for webgl to be on mobile? Are who waiting? You may not know that nokia not only sells cartography data to gps makers and online map services but also build and sells smartphones... Their current mobile maps, drive and city lens applications are really impressive.
- draggnar 14y ago
  >why use OSM instead of nokia maps? would they use it if it's better than nokia in terms of local data? > who are waiting? This is what I was asking. Their webgl seems to be a big leap over google maps and I haven't seen it beyond the webgl demo. I wasn't sure if they were using this technology beyond this demonstration.

anonymouz 14y ago

In some places it sure as hell would improve Google Maps if they would (be able to?) include OSM data. Compare for example Sarajevo on Google Maps at http://goo.gl/maps/kc3yP http://goo.gl/maps/kc3yP to its OSM counterpart at http://osm.org/go/xfYWiLv8-- http://osm.org/go/xfYWiLv8-- .

graue 14y ago
Yeah, this looks pretty neglected by Google. Interesting comparison. I couldn't help noticing that the GMaps link loads instantly while this (much more useful) OSM link took nearly 20 seconds to fully load.
- nine_k 14y ago
  Try reloading. I think g.maps code was already in your browser's cache, while OSM's was not.
- rmc 14y ago
  Partially that's the obvious due to Google having, like a bajillion servers, and OSM having like 2 dozen. However the advantage of OSM is that it's the data, and you can render your own maps on your own hardware, and depending on your budget, make it as fast as possible.
buro9 14y ago
Even in the UK I still find Google has gaps where OSM does not. In a recent trip to Bristol I was staying at a guest house on Exchange Avenue: Google: https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Bristol,+United+Kingdom&aq=0&oq=bristol&sll=43.856811,18.304939&sspn=0.17255,0.266075&vpsrc=6&g=sarajevo&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Bristol,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.45384,-2.593739&spn=0.00233,0.004157&t=m&z=18 https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&#3... OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.454096&lon=-2.593978&zoom=18&layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.454096&lon=-2.59397... The truth lies somewhere between the various maps out there. In some places Google rules, in others OSM rules. Occasionally, neither rules and usually some local mapping does. I like that there's competition to keep all of them on their toes, and I very much like that one of the contenders is a community project.