3 ms·
A... What? So _because_ Google builds their maps at their expense they are _entitled_ to use OSM and you see no problem with them not sharing back?
by crististm 13y ago
A... What? So _because_ Google builds their maps at their expense they are _entitled_ to use OSM and you see no problem with them not sharing back?
- nateabele 13y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
- 1ris 13y agoNo, this was just a pointed paraphrasing of exelius' argument.
- exelius 13y agoNo; because Google builds maps at their own expense, combining them with OSM to create a superset would make mapping better for everyone. Google is actually probably the worst example here (if the most visible): they have the least incentive to share and likely never will. But if OSM becomes the de-facto standard database for mapping (as it almost certainly would if it were a more commercial-friendly license) the mere fact that so many more people are engaging with it on a daily basis would increase the contribution rate. From a pure logistical sense, very few companies have the resources that Google does. I'm saying it's better for OSM to allow a situation where Google gets something from OSM and OSM gets nothing back from Google because OSM likely would get a lot back from a lot of other parties. It simply doesn't make sense for them to maintain their own data sets in the long term; but in the short term they can't even use OSM so they have no alternative.