Google Maps as Mapserver Layer

Thu Mar 1 14:08:20 PST 2007

On 3/1/07, Richie Pierce <rpierce at actgeospatial.com> wrote:
> I'm not completely familiar with the details on the data being provided to
> Google.  I'm almost positive there was no monetary exchange.  But like I
> said, Arkansas might be a little different because the data is already
> available, at no fee, for download, from our State clearinghouse.  So
> providing the data to Google wasn't really that big of a deal.  Saying that
> the States that do it are idiots is kind of harsh.

Yes, that is harsh, but I didn't say that. And for historical purposes
I want to reiterate that point to ensure I am not misquoted. I said,
"If the States just gave their data away without negotiating
substantive rights in return, then heck, those States are idiots." A
reasonable interpretation of that statement would be that

if (data are not available for free normally) && (States give it away,
aka, "for free," to Google) && (States do not negotatiave rights to
continue to use that data as they want) then those States are idiots.

I also said "I doubt though that that is the case." From what you are
saying, these data are available for free anyway, so there seems to be
absolutely no wrong done, implied or otherwise, by Google or the
State. The above statement just doesn't apply.

I agree with everything you say below. Your 2 cents are worth a lot more. ;-)

> Yeah they could use the
> cool tools that Google has in conjunction with great old MapServer and
> PostGIS, but you aren't keeping in mind that 98% of the population can't
> even spell GIS, and have no idea what it is we do.  All they want is a
> pretty picture.  That's why the data is provided to Google.  So Joe Q.
> Public can access the best and latest information.  They might not even know
> it's the best and latest.  I think the more freely accessible data is
> provided to big name companies like Google, so they can build their cool
> tools on top of it, the better it will be for our industry.  The more people
> see the good stuff the more they want it right?  Just my $.02
>
>
>
> Richie Pierce
> Sr GIS Analyst
> a.c.t.GeoSpatial, Inc.
> 2900 Percy Machin Drive, Suite One
> North Little Rock, AR 72114
> Ph(501) 771-2985
> rpierce at actgeospatial.com
> www.actgeospatial.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: P Kishor [mailto:punk.kish at GMAIL.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: MAPSERVER-USERS at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Google Maps as Mapserver Layer
>
> Thanks Paul, for the clarification. I would love to hear from Richie
> (and others from _the_ States that have given their data to Google)
> about the terms under which they have given it.
>
> If the States just gave their data away without negotiating
> substantive rights in return, then heck, those States are idiots. I
> doubt though that that is the case. Google would have spent its money
> on Digiglobe anyway, so I don't understand why these States are doing
> this. And, these States could have used Google's cool tools in
> conjunction with our good old MapServer and PostGIS serving data as
> WMS, and gotten the best of everything. There is some opportunity for
> education here.
>
> We should really find out the real facts before making assertions
> because it will make our arguments for open access that much stronger
> and reliable. I am going to investigate this further to find out
> really what is going on. If it takes a lot of squirreling to discover
> the truth then I will be truly surprised.
>
>
>
> On 3/1/07, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at refractions.net> wrote:
> > Puneet,
> >
> > Sorry, don't have any particular details, just lots of anecdotal reports
> > of public agencies giving their data to Google in order to achieve the
> > holy grail of seeing "their data in Google Earth".
> >
> >    http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/7507.htm
> >
> > This is not uncommon, and it is not particularly sinister from a
> > "business" point of view, since the givers are receiving what they want
> > (access in a kewl tewl) and the givees are receiving what they want
> > (data they can add to Google Earth for free).
> >
> > I have heard tales of similar deals being struck here in BC, though the
> > details are not currently available to me -- it may all just be talk at
> > this point.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > P Kishor wrote:
> > > On 3/1/07, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at refractions.net> wrote:
> > >> Richie,
> > >>
> > >> One of the quiet tragedies of the Google Earth/Maps mania is that once
> > >> public data is handed over to the Googleplex it becomes slightly less
> > >> public. You are only allowed to access mapping data served by Google
> via
> > >> Google-approved mechanisms, such as the Maps API or directly via Earth.
> > >
> > > This is an interesting assertion, Paul, and I would love to see more
> > > info on this. As far as I know, "public data" are not "handed over to
> > > the Googleplex." As far as I know, "private data" gathered by "private
> > > companies" such as "Digital Globe" are "bought with real money" by
> > > Google.
> > >
> > > As much as I am an advocate of open data access, I see nothing wrong
> > > with a legitimate exercise of two private corporations' right to enter
> > > into a trade as made possible by the currently accepted capitalistic
> > > norms. Yes, Google has a lot of money, and they are able to book the
> > > Quickbird satellites for pretty much everything useful leaving
> > > everyone else out in the cold. But hey, that is the game we are
> > > playing. And, they could have decided to just sit on it and not give
> > > access to anything to anyone unless folks ponied up for cash. I am not
> > > sure of Google's ultimate long term motives, but for now, they are
> > > behaving rather well.
> > >
> > > Once again, I would love it if I could see the details of how Arkansas
> > > ortho data, presumably "public data" were "handed" (by which, I infer,
> > > "given away for free or very low cost") to Google. The details would
> > > make for a very interesting sidebar in my dissertation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Another public geodata issue, I suppose. If enough folks who wanted to
> > >> "give their data to google" instead gave it to a 3rd party who
> processed
> > >> it into standardized tiles, then people could still get direct access
> to
> > >> the public data, and Google/Microsoft could easily integrate it as
> well.
> > >>
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> Richie Pierce wrote:
> > >> > Like many of you we have space limitations when it comes to our
> raster
> > >> > files.  We just received notice however that Google will be
> integrating
> > >> > our new Statewide ortho flight into their Google Maps/Earth service.
> > >> > This is exciting for me because it will allow me to get access to our
> > >> > statewide imagery without needing the space on my own server.  I was
> > >> > wondering if it was possible to use Google Maps imagery as a layer
> > >> in my
> > >> > map file.  I am using Mapserver and OpenLayers on some of my sites
> > >> which
> > >> > will work wonderfully.  But I also have other sites that I'm using a
> > >> > custom Mapserver interface, and I'd like add the new orthos.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >    Paul Ramsey
> >    Refractions Research
> >    http://www.refractions.net
> >    pramsey at refractions.net
> >    Phone: 250-383-3022
> >    Cell: 250-885-0632
> >
>
>
> --
> Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/
> Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
> Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> collaborate, communicate, compete
> =====================================================================
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/
Nelson Inst. for Env. Studies, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org/education/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
collaborate, communicate, compete
=====================================================================