Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

petewarden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#41

Post by Killswitch »

_delirium wrote: post #35
res0nat0r wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, to my knowledge, I have never signed a contract with Google. To use their API you will need to agree to their TOS https://developers.google.com/maps/licensing

I have never visited that page. I have visited this one: http://maps.google.com That webpage serves map tiles over HTTP, without asking me to agree to a contract first. I take it that I may therefore access the map tiles over HTTP? Obviously I assume I cannot redistribute them, as they're copyrighted. And it is good netiquette to observe robots.txt for bulk/crawl access. But beyond that I don't believe me visiting th…

I think you're confusing accessing a public version of their data with accessing their API, which this thread is about. When you use maps.google.com you are NOT agreeing to any terms, because they don't really require any to use their data on their site, but when you use the API, you're required to agree to their terms before being able to use it.

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#42

Post by mikeash »

lmgftp wrote: post #8
TallGuyShort wrote: post #2

Here's another reason that I wish was more prevalently discussed: it's not okay to violate Terms of Service anyway. Don't accept the terms? Don't use the service. We'd all have a field day if "big brother" violated the terms of an open-source license, but the freedom we enjoy in the community comes with a responsibility to honor our agreements.

This really could use more exposure. People who believe that because they only had to click "Accept" they may claim ignorance or stupidity/absurdity of the terms the accepted ought to be corrected. It's simply silly to think you may violate the terms of any agreement made, especially when that agreement is necessary to your use of the service (hence "terms" of service). While it is clear that hacker culture embraces…

Personally, I think it's silly to think that you may be bound to the terms of an agreement just because you clicked a button that says "Agree", without any of the fundamental attributes of a contract being present, and without even interacting with a representative of the other party in any way.

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#43

Post by nraynaud »

just to clear up a misconception, the SRTM is just unusable in it's normal form, you need a lot of time to clean it up and cross it with other sources. This guy does a lot of curation: http://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/dem3.html

(and I also suck google's elevation data for a test because that's the simplest way to do it: http://nraynaud.github.io/webgcode/test_threejs.html )

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#44

Post by res0nat0r »

cinquemb wrote: post #37
res0nat0r wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And is accessing a url is a legally binding contract now, especially when nothing is signed or acknowledged by one or both parties when the url is accessed? This is in no way comparable to using a companies API.

Really? Found this[0] link on a site listed on this topic thread. And like blog posts written by people on various subjects, one might click the links, find something of value from accessing the link and decide to access it in an automated fashion without caring (Oh, it has api in the url! * doesn't think twice about it *) to bother to look for anything else because as far as they are concerned, they're getting what…

They should expect to get cut off from accessing Googles API at any time if they are not operating within the bounds of whatever Google has deemed appropriate usage.

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#45

Post by cinquemb »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #20

I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of 'hackathon culture' which is to say "Hey we can do this thing ..." and get to some demo without having the foundation bits worked out. (or more importantly the future foundation bits). There are a lot of people who used to make 'kit cars' which was they took a VW bug chassis, removed the bodywork, and installed some fiberglass body on it. Really "cool" looking sports cars.…

It even gets more complicated as `dewitt mentioned: "And the cases in which the terms aren't programmatically enforced right away isn't necessarily a choice; often it is difficult to differentiate at scale between legitimate usage and disallowed usage."

This sets up a situation where people/companies can effectively 'get away' with it. So what is an aspiring entrepreneur to do when they are able to take advantage of a situation like this in a way that the other company isn't in a position block it (without throwing the baby out with the bath water) nor are they even trying to do what you are doing when you combine such usage with other "legal" means or data one collects themselves that is providing some value to people they tested their service/'hack' with?

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#46

Post by potatolicious »

graue wrote: post #22
potatolicious wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried one part of the API recently - I'm building an app that's partially intended to give local cycling directions. Now I'm between a rock and a hard place. One the one hand some parts of the MapQuest Open API are extremely bad, on the other hand Google has an all-or-nothing license for their geo data, and their native iOS maps component sucks. MapQuest's cycling directions in Manhattan is worse than having no dir…

How do the directions compare to YourNavigation? http://www.yournavigation.org/ Despite the clunky interface, I was pleasantly surprised by its biking directions: not as good as Google, but not terrible either. (I was in NYC when I tried using it for awhile.) It's fully open-source.

Just plugged in some of the test endpoints I used with MapQuest. YourNavigation seems to have two bicycling modes, "bicycle" and "bicycle (routes").

The former seems to disregard bike lanes entirely and generates some pretty hazardous recommendations (including cycling down 5th Ave, or busy sections of Park Ave in Midtown).

The "bicycle (routes)" mode does better and seems to respect bike lanes, but not consistently. There are some endpoints where it still maneuvers you into dense traffic with no bike infrastructure, when a bike-laned street is nearby and takes only marginally longer. I just checked the OSM's dataset and the data is good - so it isn't a matter of someone inserting a bike lane where one doesn't actually exist.

The app I'm working on is for NYC's new bikeshare system... Still not an acceptable alternative unfortunately. I may just give up and use Google Maps in the iOS app, but the performance of Google's native map component is extremely, extremely bad.

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#47

Post by picea »

jimmyrocks wrote: post #16

If you're looking for elevation data, the USGS provides this for free for the US. Example: http://gisdata.usgs.gov/xmlwebservices2/elevation_service.as...

Also worth noting, Adam Schneider's GPS Visualiser website is excellent for quick elevation lookups globally.

Handy for me as Geoscience Australia (another good resource) unfortunately charge for their DEM data.

http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/elevation http://www.ga.gov.au/

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#48

Post by cinquemb »

res0nat0r wrote: post #44
cinquemb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Found this[0] link on a site listed on this topic thread. And like blog posts written by people on various subjects, one might click the links, find something of value from accessing the link and decide to access it in an automated fashion without caring (Oh, it has api in the url! * doesn't think twice about it *) to bother to look for anything else because as far as they are concerned, they're getting what…

They should expect to get cut off from accessing Googles API at any time if they are not operating within the bounds of whatever Google has deemed appropriate usage.

I agree with that statement, and I mentioned that possible scenario above which ended with that being "touch luck" on the person who decided to access the url in such fashion. But nowhere in those potential interactions (that do happen all the time and not just with google) in the above, magically create some legally binding contract between parties.

Now If it is 'malicious' enough for google to recognize the access, and trace down the source to get the DOJ to throw the book at the person/company, that is a different story that we have seen before…

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#49

Post by nostrademons »

Killswitch wrote: post #41
_delirium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never visited that page. I have visited this one: http://maps.google.com That webpage serves map tiles over HTTP, without asking me to agree to a contract first. I take it that I may therefore access the map tiles over HTTP? Obviously I assume I cannot redistribute them, as they're copyrighted. And it is good netiquette to observe robots.txt for bulk/crawl access. But beyond that I don't believe me visiting th…

I think you're confusing accessing a public version of their data with accessing their API, which this thread is about. When you use maps.google.com you are NOT agreeing to any terms, because they don't really require any to use their data on their site, but when you use the API, you're required to agree to their terms before being able to use it.

FWIW, there's a "Terms" link at the bottom of maps.google.com which links to the additional ToS for Google Maps/Earth:

https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html

and the first link there is the Google Universal Terms of Service that you also agree to bind yourself to:

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

Re: Why you should not pirate Google’s geo APIs

#50

Post by Sukotto »

[Edit to add] Yes, you're right. When I compare their map side-by-side the same area in maps.google.com they are clearly different. I should have looked more carefully before asking my question.

So I guess my question should be "If they had the exact same page except using a Google map, would they be in compliance?"

-

It's not clear to me in what way the "Crime doesn't climb" page violates the quoted terms of use. Would someone please explain it to me?

  The Elevation API may only be used in conjunction with
  displaying results on a Google map; using elevation data
  without displaying a map for which elevation data was
  requested is prohibited.
They used the API to display results on a Google map.

Their site used the elevation data to display a map for which elevation data was requested.

-

I'm not being facetious. It seems to me that their use matches the requirements. So what exactly is the problem?

Post reply on HN