[exelius]

This is the GPL argument applied to data; and while for GPL there's a certain tinfoil-hat logic that has been unfortunately proven right by the NSA, I don't know that it holds for OSM since one data set plus another dataset just makes a superset. That benefits everyone.

There are companies out there that go to great expense to create their own maps: Google is one of them, but others exist as well. I don't think OSM is trying to be the One True Map (tm). In that sense, I see no problem with Google using OSM's data and not sharing back: it still fulfills OSMs mission of making mapping better for everyone. Yeah, OSM alone isn't as high quality as OSM+Google, but who cares? Eventually, many companies will likely decide that the cost of maintaining their own mapping databases is just too high and start committing to OSM instead. Probably never Google, but there are other, smaller companies out there without the resources and self-driving cars that Google has.

Tl;dr: OSM is not hurt by allowing other parties to maintain their own datasets at their own expense. Inevitably some will choose to just contribute to OSM, which is good for everyone.

[ekr]

I don't know how you arrived to that conclusion. OSM's success, popularity is determined largely by the quality of its service compared to other providers, which in turn determines the amount of user contribution. By allowing Google/Apple to use this data, their marginal value in relation to OSM increases, which in turn disincentivizes potential users from using OSM, thus making the project less popular.

Google/Apple already benefit from superior distribution/marketing, but lack in quality (at least in geo-data, many have reported OSM to have more roads, better coverage. Most of the paths, trails in the forests and mountains where I live are covered by OSM, which is why I use OSM while mountain-biking. Google is far from reaching that. Others have reported similar findings.)

Thus, as I see it, OSM is giving away for free its main superiority.

(Alas, in the name of the Church of Emacs, OSM, stop this non-sense).

[crististm]

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?

[exelius]

No; 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.

[nateabele]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[1ris]

No, this was just a pointed paraphrasing of exelius' argument.

[Vik1ng]

> it still fulfills OSMs mission of making mapping better for everyone. Yeah, OSM alone isn't as high quality as OSM+Google, but who cares?

One of the main reason I contribute to OpenStreetMap is because I don't like googles monopoly position. Yes, it's not a real one, but youtube, maps and search are pretty close. I can't do much against search, I can help a bit by using vimeo & Co, but with OpenStreetMap I can really contribute a lot to create a great alternative to companies and app developers out there.