Slashdot Mirror
Why OpenStreetMap Should Be a Priority for the Open Source Community (linuxjournal.com)
"Despite its low profile, OpenStreetMap is arguably one of the most important projects for the future of free software," argues Glyn Moody, author of Rebel Code: Linux And The Open Source Revolution, in a new Linux Journal article shared by long-time Slashdot reader carlie:
The rise of mobile phones as the primary computing device for billions of people, especially in developing economies, lends a new importance to location and movement. Many internet services now offer additional features based on where users are, where they are going and their relative position to other members of social networks. Self-driving cars and drones are two rapidly evolving hardware areas where accurate geographical information is crucial. All of those things depend upon a map in critical ways, and they require large, detailed datasets. OpenStreetMap is the only truly global open alternative to better-known, and much better-funded geodata holdings, such as Google Maps.
The current dominance of the latter is a serious problem for free software -- and freedom itself. The data that lies behind Google Maps is proprietary. Thus, any open-source program that uses Google Maps or other commercial mapping services is effectively including proprietary elements in its code. For purists, that is unacceptable in itself. But even for those with a more pragmatic viewpoint, it means that open source is dependent on a company for data that can be restricted or withdrawn at any moment....
Although undoubtedly difficult, creating high-quality map-based services is a challenge that must be tackled by the Open Source community if it wants to remain relevant in a world dominated by mobile computing. The bad news is that at the moment, millions of people are happily sending crucial geodata to proprietary services like Waze, as well as providing free bug-fixes for Google Maps. Far better if they could be working with equal enthusiasm and enjoyment on open projects, since the resulting datasets would be freely available to all, not turned into corporate property. The good news is that OpenStreetMap provides exactly the right foundation for creating those open map-based services, which is why supporting it must become a priority for the Open Source world.
The current dominance of the latter is a serious problem for free software -- and freedom itself. The data that lies behind Google Maps is proprietary. Thus, any open-source program that uses Google Maps or other commercial mapping services is effectively including proprietary elements in its code. For purists, that is unacceptable in itself. But even for those with a more pragmatic viewpoint, it means that open source is dependent on a company for data that can be restricted or withdrawn at any moment....
Although undoubtedly difficult, creating high-quality map-based services is a challenge that must be tackled by the Open Source community if it wants to remain relevant in a world dominated by mobile computing. The bad news is that at the moment, millions of people are happily sending crucial geodata to proprietary services like Waze, as well as providing free bug-fixes for Google Maps. Far better if they could be working with equal enthusiasm and enjoyment on open projects, since the resulting datasets would be freely available to all, not turned into corporate property. The good news is that OpenStreetMap provides exactly the right foundation for creating those open map-based services, which is why supporting it must become a priority for the Open Source world.
This is definitely a real issue, but it doesn't mention the most important part - the part that all the big mapping companies already know.
If you want people to contribute their data (and time) en masse, you have to give them a high-quality mobile experience.
If Open Street Map were as easy to use as Google Maps is on mobile, people would try it. And then OSM would get their traffic/new road data organically. But until OSS developers start prioritizing the average user's experience, they will simply never get to where they can compete with Google, Waze, Apple, et al.
The bad news is, millions of people are happily sending any and all data with complete disregard for the consequences to themselves and to society as a whole. Because for most people, being able to instantly send lolcats to their cousin, inform the world of their latest bowel movement or watching the soccer match live on their phone is much more important than liberty and privacy.
Oh and by the way, Waze was bought by Google in 2013. Don't make it out to be a separate entity: it's part of the collective, and it's out for your data.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
> might very well object to OpenStreetMap because of the non-GPL licensing terms used by the project.
This doesn't make sense to me for two reasons. It seems to conflate open source with GPL, and also the OpenStreetMap software *is* GPL licensed.
Open source does not mean GPL. I'm fact, the people who write and promote the GPL will tell you they support Free Software, NOT open source. They'll gladly explain the difference to you. So open source doesn't mean GPL - in fact, not only can something be open source with being GPL, the two philosophies have some fundamental differences.
Also, the primary software for open street map IS GPL, so I'm not sure why you'd say "no-GPL license". The GPL is of course a software license. The OSM project put the same terms the GPL uses into a database license. It says basically the same thing the GPL says- if you distribute it, whoever you distribute it to gets the same rights you have. That doesn't change if you make some modifications before distributing it - your modified copy is still open license.
I think there are multiple roles for OpenStreetMap to play, but one that came to my attention was mapping areas where Google, etc. haven't gone in order to help get food and power to people after a disaster.
I spent (too little) time voluntarily mapping out areas of Puerto Rico, through a well-coordinated effort to analyze and review satellite and aerial photos of less densely populated areas. This type of crowdsourcing is pretty cool...
One of the sites to visit: Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
The main issue with OpenStreetMap is that it is very labour intensive. It relies on humans to do far too much of the work.
Google gets most of its map data from AI doing image recognition these days. They buy satellite images and have the AI trace out roads and buildings. The AI can even see the shape of buildings, which is why everywhere has accurate 3D buildings on Google Maps now.
Then they send round Street View cars which read things like door numbers and traffic signs. They can read business names too. They can recognize bus stops, gates and entrances, zebra crossings and other features of the landscape.
Not only does that mean that their maps are up to date and extremely accurate, it also massively reduces the amount of work that humans have to do.
OpenStreetMap should think about ways to do something similar. Open source street view pods, photos captures by drones, dashcam footage processing... Anything to automate the process.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Here's one contributor that lays out a lot of the issues with the project in some detail.
https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/...
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I spent most of my career building GIS maps for Calgary, Canada, for the water & sewer systems; our whole asset-management strategy was based on a GIS map/database of all infrastructure. (Some screen snaps: http://brander.ca/work.html )
It was like the sun coming out when I found open-source GIS solutions in PostGIS and QGIS about 2013, and it freed me from the "ESRI jail", wherein for large corporate mapping, ESRI is the 800-lb gorilla of the market, and all its data formats are proprietary and impenetrable. That was when I found OSM, and the salient feature to me is this:
* For a building to be named in Google, the business has to pay Google.
* For a building to be identified on OSM, somebody has to like that business enough to type it in. It just needs one fan.
That's it. One serves the google accounts payable dept, one serves the general public. Really, if the map is good enough to find routes and get you there, the actual map service is a wash, and this feature is critically important.
Uncle Sam is going to get out his trust-busting stick and break up Google/Alphabet.
Maps - separate company
Search - separate company
Surveillance / "advertising" - separate company
Android - separate company
Chrome - separate company
Once he finishes bringing peace to Korea, President Trump is gonna start channeling Teddy Roosevelt. Get ready for it!