Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Towards an Open Geolocation Database

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the lat-lng-is-the-new-address dept.

Earth 74

theodp writes "With the location land rush in full swing, TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld declares it's time for an open database of places and calls on the Big Dogs of location — Twitter, Google, Foursquare, Gowalla, SimpleGeo, Loopt, Citysearch, et al. — to make it so. An open database that maps latitude and longitude coordinates to businesses, points of interest, and even people's homes should just be part of the basic fabric of the mobile Web. Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley was enthusiastic about the idea (in a standing-up-at-a-cocktail-party sort of way), says Schonfeld, while Twitter founder Jack Dorsey was a little bit more lukewarm and cautious. Time for Larry and Sergey to invite the Families to a sit-down at 37.423021,-122.083739?"

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's in it for Google? (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894492)

For all intents and purposes, Google can implement this themselves and do whatever they want without the help of anyone else in the named list.

When people start saying "for the good of all", they typically mean they want someone else to foot the bill. Of all the weirdo ideas I've heard, Foursquare has got to take the cake. It's really no wonder the CEO is enthusiastic about sharing this info; he stands to gain a huge database and backend for no cost. I suppose when you're bleeding money and you're known as the second coming of Gary Kildall, it might be to your advantage to act enthusiastic about everything and anything that might make your company look better than the crappy Web 2.0 service it really is.

Re:What's in it for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894596)

I think TechCrunch should do it instead of Google. To be clear, however, this is about the data. It is not about the database. There are several products, both open and closed, that can handle the storage part (just to name a few):
http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/spatial/ [oracle.com]
http://grass.itc.it/ [grass.itc.it]
http://opensourcegis.org/ [opensourcegis.org]

In the meantime, many businesses are poviding their addresses online and in phone books. Many already link this location to a map so customers may easily get directions. So this is a kind of "Who cares?" scenario.

Re:What's in it for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894954)

The database is the data, but organized. Stuff like ... Oracle *holds up crucifix* ... are database management systems. People have been conflating it for long enough to be really fuckin annoying.

Re:What's in it for Google? (2, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894970)

For all intents and purposes, Google can implement this themselves and do whatever they want without the help of anyone else in the named list.

I don't think they can. Google doesn't own the map data, they just license it.

Re:What's in it for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31895272)

huh, what makes you think they can't buy it with their billions in cash?!
of all these companys in the list the only one who's useful is google.

Re:What's in it for Google? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898122)

huh, what makes you think they can't buy it with their billions in cash?! of all these companys in the list the only one who's useful is google.

I imagine nothing makes him think they can't buy it, but that doesn't make his point that Google doesn't own the data less valid.

Re:What's in it for Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896028)

Actually they do own a lot of the data, at least in the US -- take a look at the copyrights on their maps, a lot of places only list Google. They switched to their own map base before announcing the driving directions app for Android.

Re:What's in it for Google? (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31913184)

Google doesn't own the map data, they just license it.

You sure about that? Check the copyright message at the bottom of this map [google.com] , for example. They've been building up their own map database, probably as a side effect of all those Street View vehicles running around. More info here [searchengineland.com] .

Re:What's in it for Google? (1)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 4 years ago | (#31934582)

Too bad this isn't about map data, but about geo location data. Google can easily build a database that maps -39.12412, 128.12351 to "Joe's Bar". No licenses involved. In fact, they already have, they're spidering the information right off of websites for $deitys sakes.

Big guys? (3, Informative)

areusche (1297613) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894496)

I've never heard of Foursquare and Gowalla until reading this. As of now, I'm pretty sure Google has the ball for running and maintaining a central and heavily used mapping database in the United States. I see Google Maps being used all over the place on websites for various things.

Heck Live/Bing Maps is being used for Weather.com's radar maps. So instead of some central authority, the De Facto services seem to be doing just fine.

Re:Big guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894662)

I've never heard of Foursquare and Gowalla until reading this.

Their databases are filled with crap. Who wants to have a list of "castles" where people live, or "important sights" where some random college dude threw a birthday bash.

And why are there 20 spots for where a beach is located? Who wants to see individual dots create areas eventually, like some painting book for kids.

Foursquare and Gowalla suffers seriosly from the junk and unclean data that are being added to their databases.

openstreetmap should not be polluted like that.

Re:Big guys? (2, Informative)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894884)

I've never heard of Foursquare and Gowalla until reading this.

Foursquare as over 2 million unique visitors per month [compete.com] . That is twice as much as /. So yes, it's a big guy. Never having heard of it before is kinda your problem here.

Re:Big guys? (1)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895038)

Being bigger than Slashdot is not my metric of success when talking about things on the scale of Google and Twitter.

Re:Big guys? (1)

tomtomtom777 (1148633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895440)

But 2 million is still a really large number for this metric. In any case it is by far the biggest location based social network at the moment.

Re:Big guys? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31895280)

What the hell is /.?

Re:Big guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31895308)

I've never heard of Foursquare and Gowalla until reading this.

Foursquare as over 2 million unique visitors per month [compete.com] . That is twice as much as /. So yes, it's a big guy. Never having heard of it before is kinda your problem here.

Two million users is nothing when the biggest players have easily quadruple that amount. Even Myspace can still boast more users. So no, they're not a big fish. Slashdot may not have as many users, but it still has a notable online presence.

Altitude? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894498)

And what if you live on a spacestation or deep in the mines of Moria?

Re:Altitude? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894654)

As of yet there are no manned space stations at geostationary orbit. The ISS coordinates would be moving all the time.

Your messiah Owebama is beating the war drums... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894504)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N18147501.htm [alertnet.org]

Can we at least see indisputable proof that Iran's development of a nuclear weapon is imminent before we go rushing in to yet another poorly-conceived war and spend trillions of dollars trying to rebuild and run a country that most Americans don't give a shit about?

Its called openstreetmap (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894508)

Openstreetmap already contains plenty of points of interest and businesses (not sure about homes yet), its editable by anyone. Lets use it as a framework for adding to this data.

Re:Its called openstreetmap (3, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894750)

Openstreetmap already contains plenty of points of interest and businesses (not sure about homes yet), its editable by anyone. Lets use it as a framework for adding to this data.

There are other projects such as Geonames and Gisgraphy. Between the three of them you have a good starting point.

Re:Its called openstreetmap (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897460)

geonames is quite a mess licence/copyright-wise - people are adding data there from basically anything, so some if it might be just lifted from any of the online maps, which would be a copyright violation in some countries.

but in general yeah, somebody should have given that erick buddy link to http://www.openstreetmap.org/ [openstreetmap.org] - would have saved some rant time...

Re:Its called openstreetmap (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898698)

geonames is quite a mess licence/copyright-wise - people are adding data there from basically anything, so some if it might be just lifted from any of the online maps, which would be a copyright violation in some countries.

Is a location copyrightable?

Re:Its called openstreetmap (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907064)

that's the great thing about messed up copyright laws - a collection of locations apparently can have a copyright. in some places.

OpenAddresses.org, OpenAerialMap.org, OpenTopograp (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31899600)

I agree. In addition to OpenStreetMap and Geonames, a few other ones poped up in the geospatial community. OpenAddresses.org [slashgeo.org] - with already 11+ addresses stored [blogspot.com] while it was launched less than a month ago, OpenAerialMap.org [slashgeo.org] - which "rebooted" late last year, and OpenTopography.org [slashgeo.org] too. There's other similar projects out there - the point being: there are several good starting points.

Also interesting is this OpenStreetMap VS Google MapMaker wrap-up [slashgeo.org] - licensing terms being, once again, an information sharing showstopper.

OSM (5, Insightful)

Mordac the Preventer (36096) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894526)

In what way does OpenStreetMap not fit the criteria already?

Re:OSM (2, Insightful)

forand (530402) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894562)

It hasn't been filled with all the useful information within the above mentioned companies databases.

Re:OSM (3, Interesting)

solevita (967690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894594)

It hasn't been filled with all the useful information within the above mentioned companies databases.

If only there was some why they could add it to the database...

I think the main reason that many businesses may not get behind the idea of adding their data to OpenStreetMap (although that is what they should be doing) is that if they do they will lose the ability to control the commercial monopoly on the data. If you really want an open database with all this stuff in (as the summary suggests), OSM is the best way forward.

Re:OSM (1)

forand (530402) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894706)

Of course. I think you and others have misinterpreted my statement. The OP asked why OpenStreetMap did not fit the criteria. The answer is that it doesn't have the data. Simple as that. WHY it doesn't have the data is because the data holders haven't entered it in.

That brings up the question of whether OpenStreetMap is the best repository for the information in the eyes of those who wish to build businesses off it. I would suspect that it is not, at this point. They do not have the infrastructure to handle a twitter like traffic load. It could become able to handle the traffic and provide the business level service that the above players would demand but it currently is not and it may be far cheaper for the above to just build a consortium of their own.

Re:OSM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894832)

Whether it is the best repository is unrelated the question of whether their infrastructure can support it. Because the data is open, a third party - anyone with the infrastructure - can host it.

Re:OSM (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897092)

[OpenStreetMap does] not have the infrastructure to handle a twitter like traffic load.

OSM is a database, not a hosted service where you can't access the data. There is no reason to throw a lot of traffic at their servers. Download the data and host it yourself.

Re:OSM (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894618)

It lacks data?

Good post (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894730)

I have used open street map, and I was impressed with how much data they did have. I'm guessing that in the not too distant future, it will become the standard for geographic information as people add to it, much like Wikipedia has become a standard encyclopedia from people's contributions.

Re:OSM (2, Insightful)

rmcd (53236) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895142)

Openstreet map is terrific. What we need, however, is for municipalities to understand that it's in their interest to keep it up to date. If a city could update with information about construction, new developments, etc, it would make OSM at the least an important adjunct to the commercial mappers. Not a lot of work for any one city and a great benefit to all.

I don't see why businesses wouldn't want their location in all available databases, but that's for them to decide.

Re:OSM (2, Interesting)

chdig (1050302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895922)

It is terrific, however some cities (ahem Toronto, Vancouver, and others.) are releasing their municipal border data under a different licence than OSM (openstreetmaps), which is possibly even worse than not keeping them up to date properly. If this continues, a developer will need to navigate dozens or hundreds of unique licences in order to display data legally. A serious problem, that needs to be nipped in the bud ASAP.

Re:OSM (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31901486)

most of that information is publicly available. what you want is a mashup of the info from openstreetmap and local government information.

Re:OSM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896232)

Biggest weakness, from a business standpoint, is the Creative Commons licence and any possible entanglements regarding attribution and sharing--cant enhance the data then re-sell it. The world needs more commercial-use-friendly data sources. Too bad OSM is not licensed under a permissive scheme, like some kind of BSD or MIT licence.

Thank you... (1)

ThinkThis (912378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896702)

You just made my day.

Don't we already have this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894532)

And isn't it called OpenStreetMap.org?

Re:Don't we already have this? (1)

chdig (1050302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896522)

No. OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a database collection of borders, multilingual location names, and data to create maps with. There are also points of interest in it, however in my belief, focussing on points of interest would take away from the constant and more important job of filling the OSM database in with street names, and accurate location information.

The database of OSM is already huge (>70GB I believe), and since points of interest are almost always drawn in Javascript (usually via OpenLayers.org's API that works with not just OpenStreetMaps, but Yahoo and google maps as well), it makes more sense to me to have a separate open organisation that takes the job of managing business names, and focusses on that, instead of combining place management with raw map data.

Working with OpenStreetMap data is already somewhat unwieldy, given the size of the database, and while in theory it sounds nice to put places into OSM, I don't see why a second organisation dedicated to doing so wouldn't be a far better idea than handing a second mandate to an organisation that has its hands full with its first.

geonames.org anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894538)

Already mostly there...

They need to fix the postalcode geolocation linkup, but otherwise it already exists.

Re:geonames.org anyone? (1)

BBadhedgehog (955308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895524)

Now that was strange. I went and looked up the River Severn, the longest river in the UK and home to the second biggest bore in the world and it's a landmark feature of type 'stream'. What on earth does place need to do to get classed as a river?

Re:geonames.org anyone? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895738)

What on earth does place need to do to get classed as a river?

Perhaps it is American-centric and the Severn isn't big enough?

Rule of the internet, it exsists already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894552)

And, people are ahead of you, http://openstreetmap.org/ contains location information of just about anything.

Government data (3, Interesting)

Anspen (673098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894556)

A good start would be the free release of postal code and mapping data by governments. After all this is information collected with public money, so it should be available to all citizens. The UK has or will release mapping [thenextweb.com] and postcode [bbc.co.uk] data. But most countries still only allow the data to be sold for hefty prices. The most ridiculous part is that in some countries the postal code date is the property of privatized former monopolies.

Re:Government data (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31895224)

As a GIS Tech for a county in Michigan I can probably provide a little insight on this. While quite a bit of information is available free of charge at the state level (http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/mgdl/) county/city governments (where the high accuracy data tends to be) tend charge for data for one main reason. The actual "Data" tends to only be requested by out of city/county, and most often state agencies. The Maps/PDF's/In office/online means of accessing the data are utilized heavily by the Local Taxpayers/Companies, but in most cases there is no one local which has the capabilities/expertise to utilize the raw data. Meaning that the people actually paying for the datas creation aren't the main beneficiaries of the requestes for the raw data. Most of the data requests are from large data aggregate firms looking to generate mailing lists ("You're in a flood zone, buy [the company who paid us]'s flood insurance") & business feasibility studies (think new Walmart/Lowes). If a way could be agreed upon to filter who is local and who isn't and enough people wanted it (most likely expressed by them going to a commissioners meeting to get the ball rolling) I'm sure local individuals could get data free of charge.

"postal code [data] is the property of privatized former monopolies"
In michigan its the power companies (I think) for the most part that handle the postal assignments. But trust me, they don't want it. I've heard of them practically begging the counties/state to take it off their hands. If they do charge unreasonable fees for it, I believe its in the hope that some big firm (google, microsoft, ect) will come along and fill in for some of the money their loosing on the program.

Re:Government data (1)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31896722)

Rather than linking to an old BBC article, you're better off linking to OpenSpace on the Ordinance Survey's website, as the data has already been released. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/ [ordnancesurvey.co.uk]

I'm not entirely hopeful that the Post Office will follow any time soon: the postcode and address data is a real cash cow for them.

if there is no copyright for data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894650)

if there is no copyright for data, then someone should just crawl the available sources and publish the results.

Re:if there is no copyright for data (1)

Mjec (666932) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895102)

Breaching the Terms of Service is a breach of contract and will get your arse sued regardless. Also, in some places, there is copyright on data.

Freebase.com?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894686)

What about using Freebase.com?

Dangerous meeeting place (3, Funny)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894688)

Time for Larry and Sergey to invite the Families to a sit-down at 37.423021,-122.083739?"

Seems like an awfully dangerous place to sit. I'd recommend moving that to 37.42194, -122.08412 [google.com] . Less traffic to dodge.

Re:Dangerous meeeting place (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894764)

I was going to suggest 37.42194, -122.08412 [google.com] , so they could get a bite to eat.

Re:Dangerous meeeting place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31895020)

those are some good burgers walter.

Re:Dangerous meeeting place (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895740)

What if they don't like the red umbrella?

finally, the ability to eat shit for real... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31894736)

instead of the non-nutritional brand shoveled on us by our 'betters'. as presented in the nyt. no propaganda required for this crowd. 99.99% of US are so hardwired, we're unable to think without a dose of media 'enhancement'. from birth, we're drilled with; what good/bad is, what's possible/impossible, & without fail, some authors' rendition of what is real or not. very little/no leeway. mmmmm, caffeine based poop? whatever happens, don't bother looking up. there's nothing that concerns you up there?

never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators...... 0, 1000 pardons, impossible, no?

& can some innocent bystander please explain the goings on in this clip?

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/fireball/

no? no surprise. it must be nothing at all?, or one thing?, no matter?, so long as it is dismissed PRIOR to investigation. close inspection leaves plenty of questions to even the novice sky watcher.

Open standards, not an open database (2, Insightful)

Grismar (840501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894744)

I hardly think an open database is the solution. Having an open standard to access any databases with geodata is far more important. That way, developers wanting to combine geodata in their applications can pick whatever they need and either aggregate the information on the fly or draw any information that is available under the proper licenses into their own database for speedy access.

I'm sure someone around here will be able to point out what standards for this purpose are already around and could be used for such a scheme. If not, then that's the first problem that requires solving. Otherwise, these companies will just enter an endless debate about who owns what and why it should or shouldn't be them controlling such a database.

Re:Open standards, not an open database (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31895354)

Look a bit up, OpenStreetmap has open data, with open formats.

Re:Open standards, not an open database (3, Insightful)

jadavis (473492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898144)

This makes zero sense.

1. There *are* open standards.
2. There *is already* an open database, OpenStreetMap.
3. As someone already pointed out, that open database uses open standards.
4. It seems bizarre to value open standards so much more than an open database. An open database is likely to become an open standard, or be converted if another open standard takes hold. The reverse does not hold true though -- proprietary information is likely to remain proprietary regardless of the existence of open standards (for instance, google maps is a proprietary database).

Re:Open standards, not an open database (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31907640)

OSM is a map. Not a database of locations. No addresses, no details, no search by business name.

Wikimapia is much closer to the ideal but still not there.

Re:Open standards, not an open database (1)

matsoo (1524273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31898264)

There is an open standard, infact several open standards and a complete standards organization [opengeospatial.org] for publishing geographical data on the web. How you access the various sets of data however is your problem. In the USA at least the goverment collected data is free, not necessarilly so in Europe.

Not so Accurate (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31894768)

Are they going to fix the accuracy issue where if I look up a street address it's off sometimes by half a block? I can certainly see this being a good thing later down the road but not for any application that requires accuracy.

Re:Not so Accurate (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897194)

We have an online ordering package for restaurants, many of whom what to do delivery within a certain "Radius" and they often wonder why we don't. They think "Oh well, you can use google maps!". Well, Google Maps can't pass the "My Dad's house Test". Which I show them where Google Maps/MapQuest/anything Teleatlas shows my dad's how is located and then where it really is one street over on the opposite end of the street.

Re:Not so Accurate (1)

markhr (698400) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897906)

Yea, I spent a good amount of time editing the markers on Google maps in my local area, and they NEVER accepted the changes, even though it was obvious I was moving them all to a more accurate location. They need to better utilize crowd-sourcing to make their map data better.

Lat-Long is *so* 1800s (1)

Hasai (131313) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895240)

I prefer UTM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Transverse_Mercator_coordinate_system). Once you get used to it, it's one HELL of a lot easier to work with.
];)

Re:Lat-Long is *so* 1800s (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31897780)

I'd be happy if we could just get people off of that ancient Babylonian "degrees/minutes/seconds" nonsense (or even worse, the bastardized "degrees, minutes, decimal-minutes" crap).

Maybe real decimals are just "too metric" for most of the English-speaking world or something.

Sounds like Wikimapia (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895310)

How would that be different?

Google/Twitter et. al. don't own the data (3, Informative)

brtech (1019012) | more than 4 years ago | (#31895618)

There are a limited number of sources for the data that is "what street address is at what latitude/longitude?" which is technically "reverse geocoding". They are:
a) The government
b) Private companies who spend lots of $$ gathering the data

In the U.S, the government sources are:
a) The TIGER database - this is not good enough for the task, but it's free
b) Local city/township and county governments - this is the very best data when it exists, but it doesn't exist in lots of places, and it's hard to get in many places where it does exist
c) The 9-1-1 system often has their own source of address data which is used to figure out where you are when you call from a mobile phone

In the U.S. the private sources are:
a) Navteq
b) Tele Atlas

All of the other places that seem to have data actually get it from the above sources one way or another. Sometimes, they have auxiliary data like satellite images or street level images, but the database that links street addresses to geocoordinates comes from one of the above sources. Note that Navteq and Tele Atlas try to get the local city/county data when they can. When they can't they "drive" streets with a GPS equipped vehicle, clicking on houses and other buildings as they go. The 9-1-1 system does the same. The city/county data is actual map data, with polygons for streets, parcels, etc. It's often hard to get address data from it without additional work because the city/county data is developed for land use planning and tax revenue and not reverse geocoding.

The local data probably ought to be freely available, and it's the most accurate, although often somewhat incomplete source of data. Trying to get free access to TeleAtlas and Navteq data is not going to work, which means getting it from Google, Twitter, etc is not going to work.

Other countries have different situations. As noted above, the U.K. mapping data is available, and is excellent quality.

Re:Google/Twitter et. al. don't own the data (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896196)

In the U.S. the private sources are:
a) Navteq
b) Tele Atlas

All of the other places that seem to have data actually get it from the above sources one way or another.

At least as far as the US is concerned Google dumped TeleAtlas a while back & are using their own maps now.

Re:Google/Twitter et. al. don't own the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31905270)

There is also openstreetmap.org although their street addresses are often lacking. Add yours :)

Open Geolocation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31896858)

... another tool to eliminate privacy.

Hell NO! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31900050)

it's time for an open database of places

Not an database. A centralized system can by definition never be really open. Since it will be controlled by one group.
What that leads to, can be seen on Wikipedia every day.

Either P2P, shared, with a trust graph... or nothing.
Because we’re not falling for that again.

Turning the web into TV, 1 IP Address at a time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31900814)

Due to a copyright claim by "Anonymous Coward"
this comment is not available in your country

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>