[geomoose-psc] Google Geocoder

Fri Jul 1 09:24:43 PDT 2016

In terms of level of effort:
a. This is already done in master.
b. This would be 30-45 minutes worth of work.
c. Probably an hour, maybe two hours with testing.

I'm willing to do "b" if folks think that dropping the geocoder from
the demo is a viable move.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
> Good point Bob, I think we need two discussions: What to do past
> 2.9.1? and What to do for 2.9.1?
>
> For beyond 2.9.1, I favor c, especially if Mapzen or something else is
> a viable option.  If there aren't viable options, then b sounds good
> for long term.
>
> For 2.9.1, I think any options will work except we might want to
> decide based on the long term.  i.e. if the long term route is b, we
> should do that now for 2.9.1 too.
>
> Eli
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
> <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
>> My vote would be for “a”, with a Note about probable deprecation of service
>> in the demo.  Then figure out what the next version will look like.
>>
>> bobb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should we:
>> a. Deliver 2.9.1 with Google.
>> b. Deliver 2.9.1 without any 'enabled' Geocoder (comment out the entry
>> in the mapbook) and write a quick "How To Enable The Googs".
>> c. Deliver 2.9.1 with an alternative geocoder to replace geocoder.us
>> and leave the google code dormant as it was in 2.9.
>>
>> Aside:
>> I'm not sure which of a-c would necessitate switching to 2.10 but
>> these are all methods for addressing the same 'bug.'
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us> wrote:
>>
>> There is this,
>> https://mapzen.com/products/search/?lng=-124.01556&lat=44.66743&zoom=12
>> not certain on licensing but seems very unrestricted.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We could ship 2.9.1 with Google and do a next-step.  2.9.1, I think,
>> is basically ready for testing.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM, James Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It may be old school, but I didn't see any good alternatives mentioned
>> though.
>>
>> 1. Violate Google TOS
>>
>> 2. Cripple the Demo, but let people add it back.  Also, removes it from
>> regular testing.
>>
>> 3. Who needs geocoders anyway?  This might be OK for the parcel app users
>> because they probably already have better local data anyway.  But it doesn't
>> help anyone else.
>>
>> Also, this means the 2.9.0 on OSGeo Live should be fixed.
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2016 09:49, "Dan Little" <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> geocoder.us was useful but the momentum for geocoding TIGER files in
>> Berkeley databases is not considered particularly modern.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:48 AM, James Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think an email saying we noticed it was down and offering to help
>> maintain
>> it might be worthwhile.
>>
>>
>> Yes, a nice courtesy.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess my real question is if geocoder.us is still useful to the
>> community
>> or has the world moved on to something else (OSM)?  If it is useful to
>> us
>> and to others, we should look into helping maintain/support it.
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2016 09:37, "Dan Little" <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Schuyler Earl. Good luck.  It's like 12 projects ago for him.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 9:35 AM, James Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Do we know who was running geocoder.us?  Maybe we could get it fixed.
>>
>>
>> On Jul 1, 2016 05:03, "Dan Little" <theduckylittle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey Folks,
>>
>> geocoder.us appears to be defunct. The website doesn't load and
>> there
>> certainly does not appear to be any geocodes being returned.  This
>> was
>> our default geocoder.
>>
>> The other geocoder with which we have code is the Google Geocoder.
>> I'm fixing it up right now to work (it wasn't) and to also include
>> an
>> appropriate credit/disclaimer.  However, I'm a bit worried as we are
>> probably running afoul the Google TOS.  I see a few options:
>>
>> 1. Run with it. We're a very small fish in a very large pond.
>> 2. Do not include a Geocoder by default but provide instructions for
>> adding back in the Google geocoder (including setting an API key).
>> This runs ... "less" afoul the TOS depending on how you read them.
>>
>>
>> Running a demo of geocoding in GeoMoose seems fine as a demonstration.
>> We probably shouldn't distribute a working demo with an API key.
>> Right now, it would take work to run a different demo than what we
>> distribute as the demo.  So that makes a case for remove it from the
>> demo.
>>
>> With something like this, it seems providing directions and maybe an
>> example (but not working with an API key) is the correct path.  That
>> allows the user to evaluate the TOS and whether they are appropriate
>> for them.
>>
>>
>> 3. Remove all the geocoders.  They're all broken.  Folks may not
>> like
>> to see the code disappear.
>>
>> Long term (and I will file a ticket to this regard) we should
>> probably
>> write our own Geocoder instructions or write a crappy
>> DIY/off-the-shelf-libs geocoder that works with the default parcel
>> data.
>>
>>
>> Let's avoid writing geocoders, even lame parcel ones.
>>
>> Best regards, Eli
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Duck
>>
>> Reference tickets:
>> - https://github.com/geomoose/geomoose/issues/150
>> - https://github.com/geomoose/geomoose/issues/152
>> _______________________________________________
>> geomoose-psc mailing list
>> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> geomoose-psc mailing list
>> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> geomoose-psc mailing list
>> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>>
>>
>>
>> "I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.”
>> -  Niccolo Machiavelli
>>
>>
>>
>>