[HN Gopher] Overture Maps Foundation
___________________________________________________________________
Overture Maps Foundation
Author : hampelm
Score : 76 points
Date : 2022-12-15 14:22 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (overturemaps.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (overturemaps.org)
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| There's already a ton of open source tools and map community
| resources. Why should I trust the consortium set up by Meta et
| al?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| it's like DisneyLand, except maybe more like WestWorld
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| The background here is mostly that these big organizations feel
| threatened by Google, and issues like the legal/licensure
| restrictions behind using big open data projects like
| OpenStreetMap make it hard to commit to using those datasets.
| They're trying to stay competitive.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| In the FAQ they state that they will "combine OSM with other
| sources to produce new open map data sets. Overture data will
| be available for use by the OSM community under compatible
| open data licenses."
|
| Anything combined with OSM will be a derivative dataset. So
| the whole project will have to be released under the ODbL
| license. Or something compatible with it. I don't think this
| will really help anyone get away from those issues.
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| What's the licensure/legal restriction in using OpenStreetMap
| aside from including attribution?
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| OSM data is licensed via the Open Database License (ODbL) -
| of particular interest to the folks in this consortium is
| the `share-alike` provision of that license, which posits
| that you can make derivative databases of the data (such as
| augmenting it with other data/metadata) as long as you
| assign the ODbL to the derivative data.
|
| This is a problem if you have proprietary data that you
| want to use to augment OSM. Some interpretation here: https
| ://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Lega...?
|
| tl;dr from that document:
|
| > " _...if you improve our data and then distribute it, you
| need to share your improvements with the general public at
| no charge. A painless way to do that is to contribute your
| improvements directly back to OpenStreetMap._ "
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| It has a viral license, any data you mix with OSM data
| becomes open source.
|
| Data sources that people commonly want to blend with
| mapping data have legal and regulatory restrictions with
| respect to privacy, data jurisdiction, acceptable use,
| statutory time limits, contract terms, etc. The OSM license
| terms are in conflict with legal and regulatory compliance
| requirements.
| Bedon292 wrote:
| Not really. Any Derivative Data needs to be licensed
| under the same or compatible license IF it is Publicly
| Used [4.4a]. You can internally use it without issues.
| And you can have a Collective Database which includes it
| without licensing the entire database under the same
| license [4.5a].
|
| See: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| You may disagree, but the legal departments of every
| organization I've worked for that has looked into the
| matter concurs with this opinion. It effectively
| prohibits many practical applications for which
| organizations want to use mapping data for more than
| rendering maps. Companies that do use OSM data have rigid
| policies that only allow it to be used in narrow
| contexts.
|
| The loophole that most companies seem to have landed on
| is using OSM data to do parallel construction of private
| data, which technically avoids the Derivative Database
| problem.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| This is particularly true for governments. I know the
| United States Geological Survey wanted to use OSM data
| for portions of their cartography, but can't because it's
| not public domain (as their products must be).
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| Though Overture also aren't proposing public domain;
| they're using a (newish, untested) permissive licence,
| CDLA.
| lostfocus wrote:
| I'm honestly a bit baffled - what do they actually do?
| tppiotrowski wrote:
| OpenStreetMap collects data via volunteers entering information
| about their neighborhoods but there is also government
| generated data from surveys so I think they aim to automate
| combining the two in a unified open source format.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Not to mention algorithmically generated data, e.g. ML on
| satellite imagery, which some folks in the OSM community are
| vehemently opposed to.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| Previous related discussion: _TomTom 's new mapping platform and
| ecosystem._ (550 points, 455 comments)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33432720
| Doctor_Fegg wrote:
| Duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33998438
| artonge wrote:
| From the FAQ:
|
| What is the relationship between Overture and OpenStreetMap?
|
| Overture is a data-centric map project, not a community of
| individual map editors. Therefore, Overture is intended to be
| complementary to OSM. We combine OSM with other sources to
| produce new open map data sets. Overture data will be available
| for use by the OpenStreetMap community under compatible open data
| licenses. Overture members are encouraged to contribute to OSM
| directly.
| artonge wrote:
| Also:
|
| How will Overture data be licensed?
|
| Data contributed to ODbL licensed datasets will be contributed
| under both the ODbL and CDLA permissive v2. Contributions to
| CDLA permissive v2 datasets will be contributed under the CDLA
| permissive v2. How will Overture code be licensed?
|
| Overture's open source code will be subject to the MIT license.
|
| ODbL: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/
| PeterCorless wrote:
| I looked at this page, and I left mostly confused as to what,
| precisely, "Overture Maps" actually is (or will be). Is it...
|
| a) A geospatial data revision control system? [Collaborative Map
| Building]
|
| b) A new way to do geospatial indexing, or some metamanagement
| layer on top of one or more existing forms of geospatial
| indexing? [Global Entity Reference System]
|
| c) A quality control process, tool, system or review
| board/certification standard? [Quality Assurance Processes]
|
| d) Specific SQL or NoSQL reifications for binding to specific
| datastores? [Structured Data Schema]
|
| You can read into these tea leaves all you want, but at the end
| of the day, it's all just marketecture with no actual "stuff"
| behind it. At least as far as you and I as rubes on the Internet
| are concerned. The page is very, very light on details.
|
| Moreover, I am 100% positive that the $3,000 price tag for
| individuals to just poke your nose in the tent, or $300,000 to
| actually to have _voting rights_ is about as _anti_ -open
| source-y as you can get.
|
| Is it just me? Is this how people expect good open source results
| and progress to actually occur?
| [deleted]
| jtmiclat wrote:
| Interesting to see some of the founding members of Overture Maps
| Foundation are also major sponsors of MapLibre
| (https://maplibre.org/sponsors/). I wonder if there are plans to
| unify these 2 communities.
| jtmiclat wrote:
| Looking into it, it seems all founding members sponsor maplibre
| https://opencollective.com/maplibre (MS is sponsoring via
| Github sponsors)
| solardev wrote:
| It's interesting that this is a consortium of second-tier map
| providers -- all the commercial enterprises that aren't as good
| as Google or Mapbox on the web. No ESRI participation on the GIS
| front. No OpenLayers or Leaflet or Maplibre on the open source
| front.
|
| This reminds me of the Micro Four Thirds model, where smaller
| camera manufacturers teamed up to fight Canon and Nikon. This
| looks like a bunch of smaller map companies trying to stay
| relevant.
|
| (edit: the below is incorrect, please see boise's reply below)
| FWIW, I believe none of the founding members generate their own
| mapping data the way that Google, the Census, or Here.com do.
| They mostly republish Census/USPS data along with relicensing
| ESRI or Here spatial data. So it's not even a consortium of data
| creators, but more like an interop group that's trying to create
| a competing standard to what's already out there.
| boise wrote:
| All of the founding members generate their own mapping data,
| and are top tier contributors to OpenStreetMap
| https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/8/5/232
| solardev wrote:
| I see, thanks for the details! I stand corrected.
| 2devnull wrote:
| So embrace, extend, extinguish?
|
| Maybe if the extinguish google or esri that would be a good
| thing. Way too many money changers in the spatial domain. It
| makes me want to found a startup to democratize the
| democratization of democratized foo.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| s/a competing standard/a gated community/
| 7952 wrote:
| There are a large number of other datasets beyond the big name
| ones like OSM. There are governments all over the world
| uploading thousands of layers to thousands of different open
| data portals. Dozens of satellite operators selling optical and
| radar data. Commercial vendors selling information about
| property, mobile phone reception, demographic information. And
| it's all in different formats uses different vocabularies and
| was built to different standards.
|
| And it is not just about maps but as an input to other systems
| and models. Knowing the location of a customer, machine or
| business tells you a lot about it and this kind of data unlocks
| that.
|
| Also, ESRI are quietly putting a lot of effort into data
| curation and aggregating it in one place. But whatever they
| build will be slow, buggy, and focused on ESRI and its
| customers. In fact a lot of government open data providers have
| been moving their portals to ESRI and access to raw flat files
| is being lost.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-15 23:02 UTC)