Why the world needs OpenStreetMap
(I decided to translate the popular article of Serge Wroclawski about OSM. Although she came out in January, I did not see the transfer to Habré.)
Every time I tell someone about OpenStreetMap, they always ask me “Why not use Google Maps?” From a practical point of view, this is a relevant question, but in fact it’s not just a question of practicality, but what society we want to live. I discussed this topic in 2008 in my report on OpenStreetMap, which I presented at the first MappingDC meeting. Here I want to present the same thoughts in an extended version.
')
At the beginning of the XIX century, people experienced difficulties with time - not in how much they had it, but in knowing what time it was. The clock, of course, had already been invented, but each city had its own time, “local time”, which was synchronized between the city’s watchtowers, most often with the help of church bells. Later, Railway Time (Railway Time), and then Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) gradually replaced all local time, and most people today do not even realize that time is not some kind of universal thing. In the US, this concept was supported first by railways, and then by universities and large companies.
The “problem of time” today is geography, and everyone is looking for a reference source. Google spends about $ 1 billion annually , keeping their cards up to date, and I'm not talking about the 1.5 billion that Google spent buying Waze . And Google is far from the only company that is trying to buy everything that is possible, associated with maps, for Nokia bought Navteq, and TomTom and Tele Atlas are working on a merger. All these companies are trying to become the reference source of information about what is on the ground.
All this is happening for the reason that the knowledge that on earth today has become a big business. With GPS in every car and with a smartphone in every pocket, the market for services reporting where you are and where you are going has become very hot.
But since there are all these companies, then why do we need such a project as OpenStreetMap? The answer lies in the simple idea that no company should have a monopoly on "place", just like no other company had a monopoly on "time" at the beginning of the 19th century. A “place” is a shared resource, and if you give all the power over one company to it, you will give it the power not only to report where you are, but also the power to distort this information. Simply put, there are three points: who decides what to show on the map; who decides where you are and where you are going; and the issue of personal privacy.
Who decides what to show on Google Map? The answer is obvious - Google. I saw concern about this fact at a meeting with the local government in 2009 - they doubted whether to use Google Maps on their website, because Google itself decides which companies to show on their map. Their anxiety was completely justified, since the government must demonstrate open-mindedness, and by giving the card to the side, they lost control of it.
It seems inevitable that sooner or later Google monetizes geographic search either by paid results or by sorting by priority. If only they don’t do it anymore (i.e. is it a coincidence that when I look for “breakfast”, being near my house, the first result is “SUBWAY® Restaurants”?).
Of course, Google is not the only provider of maps, they are just one example. The fact is that when you use the services of a supplier of cards, you give him control over which thing to highlight on the map, and which not to show at all.
The second point of concern is location information. Who decides what is “a place nearby” or where you should go or something to stay away from. This issue was raised by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), in connection with the case where the map provider used the information on which areas it considers dangerous or safe when constructing the route. This immediately raises a fair question - who is to decide whether any area is dangerous, and what does it mean by danger?
Here, right now, Flickr collects information about areas based on photos and provides it through its API . They use this information to recommend tags for your photo, but it is quite possible to use information on the boundaries of areas to more subtly influence any issue, starting with the traffic patterns and ending with real estate prices, because as soon as the map provider becomes large enough, they begin to rely as the source of "truth."
Finally, all of these card providers are interested in collecting information about you, including ways you may well disagree. Both Google and Apple collect information about your location when you use their services. They use this information to improve the accuracy of the maps, but Google has already announced that it is going to determine the relationship between what you are looking for and where you are going . With 500 million Android phones, this is a huge amount of information about which habits of individual people manifest themselves when they just walk, when they go to work, go to the hospital, or even take part in a protest rally. Definitely, we cannot ignore the impact on society of the fact that all this heap of data is in the same hands, no matter how noble they are . Companies like Foursquare use gameplay to hide what is essentially the process of collecting a huge amount of data, and even Google has already entered this game with gamification in Ingress - a game that imposes an artificial world on top of our real world and encourages users to collect route information. and take photos in the process of how they fight or support the invasion of aliens.
Now that we have identified the problems, we can see how OpenStreetMap solves them all.
Regarding the contents of the maps, OpenStreetMap is both neutral and transparent. OpenStreetMap is a wiki-like map that anyone can edit. If the store is not on the map, it can be added by both the store owner and the visitor. As for the display (rendering) of the card, any person or company involved in the creation of the card is free to render it as it suits him. The main map on OpenStreetMap.org uses a rendering software and a free license style that anyone can pick up and customize. Simply put, anyone who needs it can always create their own maps based on OSM data.
Also, despite the fact that the most popular route builders for OpenStreetMap are licensed under FLOSS, even if some company chooses another license, users can always use their route builders, and by comparing the results of the build, identify any frauds, if any. .
Finally, the user is free to download any part or even the entire OpenStreetMap map for use offline. This means that you can use OpenStreetMap data for navigation without transferring your location information to the side at all.
OpenStreetMap respects communities and respects people. If you are not contributing to OSM yet, consider helping out. If you are already making a contribution - thank you very much!
Every time I tell someone about OpenStreetMap, they always ask me “Why not use Google Maps?” From a practical point of view, this is a relevant question, but in fact it’s not just a question of practicality, but what society we want to live. I discussed this topic in 2008 in my report on OpenStreetMap, which I presented at the first MappingDC meeting. Here I want to present the same thoughts in an extended version.
')
At the beginning of the XIX century, people experienced difficulties with time - not in how much they had it, but in knowing what time it was. The clock, of course, had already been invented, but each city had its own time, “local time”, which was synchronized between the city’s watchtowers, most often with the help of church bells. Later, Railway Time (Railway Time), and then Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) gradually replaced all local time, and most people today do not even realize that time is not some kind of universal thing. In the US, this concept was supported first by railways, and then by universities and large companies.
The “problem of time” today is geography, and everyone is looking for a reference source. Google spends about $ 1 billion annually , keeping their cards up to date, and I'm not talking about the 1.5 billion that Google spent buying Waze . And Google is far from the only company that is trying to buy everything that is possible, associated with maps, for Nokia bought Navteq, and TomTom and Tele Atlas are working on a merger. All these companies are trying to become the reference source of information about what is on the ground.
All this is happening for the reason that the knowledge that on earth today has become a big business. With GPS in every car and with a smartphone in every pocket, the market for services reporting where you are and where you are going has become very hot.
But since there are all these companies, then why do we need such a project as OpenStreetMap? The answer lies in the simple idea that no company should have a monopoly on "place", just like no other company had a monopoly on "time" at the beginning of the 19th century. A “place” is a shared resource, and if you give all the power over one company to it, you will give it the power not only to report where you are, but also the power to distort this information. Simply put, there are three points: who decides what to show on the map; who decides where you are and where you are going; and the issue of personal privacy.
Who decides what to show on Google Map? The answer is obvious - Google. I saw concern about this fact at a meeting with the local government in 2009 - they doubted whether to use Google Maps on their website, because Google itself decides which companies to show on their map. Their anxiety was completely justified, since the government must demonstrate open-mindedness, and by giving the card to the side, they lost control of it.
It seems inevitable that sooner or later Google monetizes geographic search either by paid results or by sorting by priority. If only they don’t do it anymore (i.e. is it a coincidence that when I look for “breakfast”, being near my house, the first result is “SUBWAY® Restaurants”?).
Of course, Google is not the only provider of maps, they are just one example. The fact is that when you use the services of a supplier of cards, you give him control over which thing to highlight on the map, and which not to show at all.
The second point of concern is location information. Who decides what is “a place nearby” or where you should go or something to stay away from. This issue was raised by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), in connection with the case where the map provider used the information on which areas it considers dangerous or safe when constructing the route. This immediately raises a fair question - who is to decide whether any area is dangerous, and what does it mean by danger?
Here, right now, Flickr collects information about areas based on photos and provides it through its API . They use this information to recommend tags for your photo, but it is quite possible to use information on the boundaries of areas to more subtly influence any issue, starting with the traffic patterns and ending with real estate prices, because as soon as the map provider becomes large enough, they begin to rely as the source of "truth."
Finally, all of these card providers are interested in collecting information about you, including ways you may well disagree. Both Google and Apple collect information about your location when you use their services. They use this information to improve the accuracy of the maps, but Google has already announced that it is going to determine the relationship between what you are looking for and where you are going . With 500 million Android phones, this is a huge amount of information about which habits of individual people manifest themselves when they just walk, when they go to work, go to the hospital, or even take part in a protest rally. Definitely, we cannot ignore the impact on society of the fact that all this heap of data is in the same hands, no matter how noble they are . Companies like Foursquare use gameplay to hide what is essentially the process of collecting a huge amount of data, and even Google has already entered this game with gamification in Ingress - a game that imposes an artificial world on top of our real world and encourages users to collect route information. and take photos in the process of how they fight or support the invasion of aliens.
Now that we have identified the problems, we can see how OpenStreetMap solves them all.
Regarding the contents of the maps, OpenStreetMap is both neutral and transparent. OpenStreetMap is a wiki-like map that anyone can edit. If the store is not on the map, it can be added by both the store owner and the visitor. As for the display (rendering) of the card, any person or company involved in the creation of the card is free to render it as it suits him. The main map on OpenStreetMap.org uses a rendering software and a free license style that anyone can pick up and customize. Simply put, anyone who needs it can always create their own maps based on OSM data.
Also, despite the fact that the most popular route builders for OpenStreetMap are licensed under FLOSS, even if some company chooses another license, users can always use their route builders, and by comparing the results of the build, identify any frauds, if any. .
Finally, the user is free to download any part or even the entire OpenStreetMap map for use offline. This means that you can use OpenStreetMap data for navigation without transferring your location information to the side at all.
OpenStreetMap respects communities and respects people. If you are not contributing to OSM yet, consider helping out. If you are already making a contribution - thank you very much!
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/217291/
All Articles