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?
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. "
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.
There are some cases where it's perfectly fine to not have to release the data, like if you, as a company make a map of how much each store makes in revenue, and you want to use OSM. You should not have to release internal, confidential sales data.
Oh, I agree. A startup I've been advising is in the GIS space, and the old OSM license meant they had to use other map sources instead.
On one hand sharing modifications to base layers would not be an issue, but the business model revolves around allowing clients to upload their own layers, many of which they can't release for business reasons or in some cases legal reasons.
The old license meant a lot of effort was wasted on producing own base maps which could've gone into fixing issues with OSM instead (e.g. areas covered by customers include sparsely populated areas where both OSM and Google's maps are severely lacking, but where getting GPS traces of all the local roads that they could release would be easy).
The new license seems to be sufficient for their usage. The problem currently is just that it's vague. E.g. I think it's safe to assume that your example would be ok, but there's still a lot of grey areas. For the company mentioned above, I also think the new license is probably ok, but it'll take some time to review.
While on one hand the new license gives more opportunities for keeping data private in some instances, I think it'll actually result in more data released for the reason that it allows a lot of people that previously would never dare touch OSM data to actually use it, and so gives them a reason to contribute fixes and improvements.
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.
Does Foursquare's Venue data count as "map data" or "mashup data"?
IMHO, basic venue metadata info like name, address, geocoded address, and other details like phone number, hours and website should count as map data. Stuff like user reviews should count as mashup data.
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 to its OSM counterpart at http://osm.org/go/xfYWiLv8-- .
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.
I find that even in heavily populated areas in the US, OSM tends to best Google in the case of trails and paths in parks, and biking routes.
I suspect this is a case that is particularly well suited for crowd-sourcing though, since these are the sort of places people who enjoy mapping are likely to enjoy exploring the most.
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.
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.
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) which does not currently have street names or local listings. My question is, are they waiting for webgl to be on mobile?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
