During the Annual Meeting in Tokyo, new Board members replaced long-standing members Steve Coast and Mikel Maron. During the first few weeks, even before the face-to-face meeting, it became clear that the thinking of members of the Board is now much broader than it has been in past years. The role of the OSMF has been brought into question. While the thinking among the Board members seems to be very diverse, it becomes clear that, from a high-level perspective, there are two sides. One side considers the OSMF as providing a support function for the mappers’ community, while the other acknowledges that making OpenStreetMap data a viable alternative to the incumbent map sources requires a balance between data contribution (the mappers’ community) and data consumption (those who provide services based on OSM data to the consumer).

Both sides are fully aware that the mappers are the key element. However, one side considers themselves to represent the interests of the mappers. In the world of business, this would be equivalent to the labour unions. The other side is also willing to consider the needs of those who are working with data in order to leverage the use of OpenStreetMap data and therefore make the necessary compromise in order to grow the OSM ecosystem. This would be similar to the Ministry of Economy, which deals with a prospering economy. To give an example: commercial companies that are considering the use of OSM data have approached the Board in order to discuss the impact of their to-be-launched services of OpenStreetMap. Most companies expect to discuss such topics, where business secrets are involved, under a confidentiality agreement. One side of the Board is willing to make such a compromise, while the other considers confidentiality agreements to be a disadvantage for the mapping community and dislikes confidentiality agreements in general.

Many of these conflicting standpoints have already evolved during the first weeks of the new Board. The current purpose of the OpenStreetMap Foundation (“an initiative to create and provide free geographic data, such as street maps, to anyone”) is too broad for it to be of help in justifying either standpoint. It comes down to the fact that the purpose of the OSMF needs to be more precisely defined in order to judge which standpoint is more in line with the OSMF’s intentions.

I assume this discussion will become a significant part of the Board’s face-to-face meeting at the beginning of November.

I am just returning from the Eurobike in Friedrichshafen, the major fair for bicycles.

On the one hand, I am fascinated by the boom of e-bikes - including all the "electronic tuning" opportunities. On the other hand, I am deeply disappointed by the motor, battery and controller combinations that form a completely proprietary system.

Imagine you wish to go to work by bike but do not want to increase your heart beat above 140bpm to avoid sweating. The  e-motor supports you as soon as go close to the set threshold. With the e-bike you could do implement "chip-tuning" to increase the maximum speed as seen in cars. You could download a route with the altitude profile and see if current battery power will be sufficient to take you to the destination (here lies the link to OSM).

E-bikes are still at an early stage but sales figures are steadily growing and the typical early stage problems seem to get sorted. The acuation unit - including the electronic controller - comes from a handful of providers, with Panasonic as the market leader. Bosch informed me that they are not planning to provide any access - not even read-only - to their system. If you are facing a problem you have to go an authorized dealer who has a diagnostic unit to read out the memory of the controller - the same closed world as we know it from the automotive industry.

Wouldn't it be cool if the firmware of the electronic controller could be replaced with an Open Source firmware? The same way as I can replace the some of the WLAN-Router firmware with Open Source solutions like OpenWRT or Tomato. Then you could link your smartphone to your e-bike and access all the relevant information or tune it through apps.

I would be willing to organize a hack-day or support (financially) initiatives if anybody comes up with some good ideas to 'hijack' one or the other e-bike controller so that a smartphone connection can be established. Let me know what you think!

There are several approaches to community maps in the wild. The two extreme approaches are OpenStreetMap and Google with Map Maker.

OpenStreetMap with free map data in mind

OpenStreetMap has started with a blank map and fully concentrated on mappers to achieve a critical mass of contributors and map data. The trigger of the project was to establish an “open” alternative to commercial map data that on the one hand had to be licensed against a fee, and on the other hand had to be taken as provided. People who contribute to the OpenStreetMap project retain the copyright on their contribution and no one can make money directly from licensing their data to a 3^rd party, which is an important aspect as the contributors dedicate time and effort into project without receiving any financial reward.

Google with map data usage in mind

Google has started their map activities in order to provide maps to consumers and developers for use in 3^rd party projects. The Google Maps project began with a full focus on map (data) consumption.

Google had observed how effective and efficient community maps can be and therefore started its own community approach with Google Map Maker. In comparison to OpenStreetMap, all contributions are moderated. The process of contributing is not always very smooth as is evident in this report.

Different approaches, different motiviations

However, what is more interesting is that there is a completely different motivation to contribute to Google Maps: most contributors to Google Maps just want to ensure that their home and/or business addresses are accurately listed on the map – pure self-interest. Nonetheless, there is another very interesting aspect for mappers: the contributions are much more relevant in regards to the number of people who will take notice of a change.

Both approaches lead to very different motivations behind contributions, and therefore to distinguishably different contributions themselves. Furthermore, both projects still have an imbalance between contributions and consumptions with the pendulars on polarizing sides. However, both projects are now competing for contributors with very different rewards to offer  them: one gives users the chance to contribute to a free and open map that is driven by users’ interests, as opposed to commercial motivations; the other offers users the chance to contribute to a map that is used by millions.

A competition for contributors

The moves of the commercial map providers towards crowdsourcing will impact OpenStreetMap through competition for contributors. While there is still a very healthy growth in people signing up for OpenStreetMap, this competitive force might not yet get unnoticed on the growth curve.

If you  were to look at how decisions about the usage of maps are made then you may say that most users, and even developers, have no clue about the source of the underlying map data of a map or a map service. Developers decide on a map/location API that they want to use as a basis for their mapping related services, while consumers choose a product or service on the web or on their mobile device.

I would estimate that more than 85% of all map related transactions on the web or on a mobile device are handled through a location API of one of the big players: Apple, Google or Microsoft.

Map data licensing is legacy business

Five to ten years ago, the map business landscape was looking completely different. There were two global map makers (today, there is also Google and OpenStreetMap – ignoring the local map data providers) and they were selling map data to automotive firms, telematics companies and large internet enterprises.  The map makers were providing their map data in nearly several dozen(!) data formats to their customers and these companies were developing services straight on top of the map data.

Although this legacy business still exists, and with still impressive revenues, this type of business will fade away as more and more services are provided through the map/location APIs.  Handling raw map data is just a burden if you do not need low level map data access.

The map/location API is key

The map/location API has become a part of a platform or operating system (e.g. Apple iOS, Android, Microsoft Windows Mobile). Every platform provider has to offer a map/location API to remain competitive ,while the map/location API provider selects and handles the map data.  Hence, most of the revenue for map data providers will come from these platform providers and there will only be a limited number of platform providers due to network effects. This also means that the revenue potential is limited.

There are restrictions on the map/location API, and therefore not all kind of services can be established by using these map/location APIs. Sometimes, low level access to map data is required but not possible with these APIs, e.g. turn-by-turn GPS navigation applications or telematics services. However, the largest chunk of application is, or will be, served by these APIs.

TeleAtlas once purchased for €2,9bn is today worth less than €800 Mio (incl. TomTom) today.  This nicely illustrates the future profit expectations from the map data business. Furthermore, TeleAtlas, respectively TomTom, have “streamlined” their map data business with the result being that most automotive companies were completely turning away from TeleAtlas maps (even at good times TeleAtlas was only scratching the 10% market share). In practice, that means that Navteq, respectively Nokia, has a monopoly as map data provider in the automotive industry.

However, it is clear that the automotive world will not accept a monopoly situation over an extended period of time. They only accept the situation as it is clear that in the near future the automotive industry will also rely on a “location API” rather than map data – similar to the web and mobile environment (and with similar competition). What it means is that we will also see a new category of map/location APIs that will also handle low level map data access so that hardly any developer will have to deal with raw map data anymore.

What does this mean for the global map data providers?

Google is on the right track without having a legacy business. Google will extend their API so that low level map data access is possible, and developers that were forced to work with raw map data (e.g. automotive solutions) can rely on their map/location API.

Nokia needs to find a solution to get rid of their legacy map data business so that it will not hinder the provision of competitive map/location API across platforms. They need to find a path to reduce their offering of several dozen map data formats to a single map/location API. It will be an organizational challenge, rather than a technical one, as a lot of money is still bound to the legacy business.

TomTom has started to stop their legacy business but has not yet come to market with a solution that is future proof. All signs hint that TomTom is to be the new map data provider for Apple – replacing Google. It remains unclear who builds the map/location API: TomTom or Apple themselves. If they are purely providing map data to Apple then this would foster the direction of the share price and TomTom will shortly fall into the hands of an admiring Asian or US company for a different direction.

OpenStreetMap is too heavily map data driven – at least in my opinion. The project is focused on capturing map data and neglects the needs of developers to build services on of the map data.  The project needs to get to its next stage where it caters the need of data consumers rather than data contributors.

The phenomena of crowdsouring does work. This can be seen in the example of Wikipedia.

OpenStreetMap is a crowdsourced map that has generated significant traction. Many people see OpenStreetMap as just another map that is “free”. However, there is much more to it than that. I want to highlight three aspects that make OpenStreetMap unique – beyond being “free” (of charge), especially as those differences are not immediately obvious when you visit the OpenStreetMap website.

Live Database

There is no other world-wide multi-user database (with thousands of people working in parallel) that releases changes instantly. This makes OpenStreetMap an unrivaled target for crisis mapping. No other platform exists where users can immediately start working on a map after a crisis occurs, without any lead time to set up or adjust an infrastructure. No other map database has “fresher” maps. And no other set of maps at this scale allows immediate feedback to its contributors – in a sense that; “you see what you map”.

Flexibility of attributes leads to an infinite number of special interest maps

There are no limitations on map attributes. Users can invent attributes for different kind of maps: public transport; sports; crisis mapping; wheelchair routing and many, many more. There are currently 100 different maps listed here. One map database contains all kinds of maps – it is just matter of map rendering. Existing information can be re-used for special interest maps e.g. street networks are extended by bicycle routes to establish a bicycle map. Users can take  existing data and build a “new” map.

Agglomeration of local competences leads to very detailed coverage

More than 400,000 users have registered to contribute local knowledge to OpenStreetMap. No other map project or commercial map provider can revert to so many mapping resources – especially with local knowledge. The level of map detail as a result becomes immediately visible when you zoom into a city and see all the details that are captured – including tree, footpaths, building footprints and so on.

As you can see, OpenStreetMap is more than just a “free” map. This does not mean that OpenStreetMap fits all purposes; however, there are interesting characteristics to OpenStreetMap that make it special.

OpenStreetMap is the No. 1 map data provider, especially in the academics environment. It is also more and more becoming the preferred solution when more sophisticated interactions with a map are required.

All of the map APIs from the large players like Google and Bing are very limited when more sophisticated location services are developed. If you want to influence the way in which bicycle routes are calculated you have no possibility of doing this with the APIs of the incumbents. If you want to build a parking app where streets are colored according to ‘free’, ‘paid’ or ‘no parking’ – you run into the limitations of the widespread APIs – even if you pay for the “professional options”.

As more and more location-aware services evolve that require more low level interaction with the map, the more interesting OpenStreetMap becomes as there are almost no limitations to what you can do with the map data. The academic world has began already to experiment with these low level map interactions and this is why it more widely used in this environment. However, I expect that the requirement to access low level map information is becoming more critical to a growing amount of developers and therefore also becoming increasingly interesting for developers.

Hi,

if you are in London or nearby this Sunday you should take the opportunity and join the open OSMF-session:  This is your chance to discuss the license, SOTM, funding or anything else in person! From 5p.m. onwards we are happy to offer you a beer.

See you on Sunday,

Oliver

Update: See my images from the week-end: http://bit.ly/kM6lu5

OpenStreetMap has always been about creating maps. From the beginning, it makes sense: you must create a map (or collect map data) before you can use it. In many areas OpenStreetMap has reached a level where it can easily compete with commercial maps or is even superior. The latter is especially true for footpath and cycle path coverage (side note: the commercial map suppliers do not issue any coverage information on footpaths – most probably due to them not being competitive).

Are the OpenStreetMap data artwork or are they designed for practical use?

So, what are these nice maps (or at least map data) intended for? Do they represent a form of artistic creativity or are they indented for real world usage?

With the map reaching a critical point of coverage, people have started to begin applying this map data in their services; mainly in rendering a map from OSM data. The question is; do these users become part of the so called OSM community?

In what way can data consumers contribute to the OpenStreetMap project and community?

When I say, “becoming part of the OSM community” I mean: are they granted any rights? Can they request new attributes or changes in existing ones? Is the knowledge of applying (and transforming) map data of interest for the contributors?

The OpenStreetMap Foundation has the task to support the OpenStreetMap community. Does it mean that the emphasis of support starts with helping the contributors? Followed by attracting users? Is the final step to create a balance between data contributors and data consumers?

To date, the OSM community is still dominated by OpenStreetMap contributors – across all regions. The question remains open if, and how, the map data users fit into today’s constitution of the OSM community.

The corporate world has experienced wide adoption of Open Source libraries with the introduction of the less restrictive LGPL license.  The question is; if a less restrictive share-alike license (ODbL or CC-BY-SA) could experience a similar adoption in the corporate world and whether this would result in either accelerated growth of map data and/or lead to better tools and services for OSM data.

In accordance with the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), a “lesser share-alike” license would allow for the linking of open map data against proprietary map data. This would be in a way that the linking would be robust with updates of the open map data. Also, the source data would always be distributed along in a readable format.

What would be the anticipated usage among corporate users, and especially commercial map makers?

• Commercial map makers would start “cherry picking” – most likely combining their street networks with the pedestrian and bicycle routes from OpenStreetMap.
• Owners of special maps, e.g. public transport operators or theme park operators, would enrich their maps with OpenStreetMap data.

Would the usage outlined above strengthen or harm the OpenStreetMap project?

Negative aspects:

• A combined map comprising both commercial map data and OpenStreetMap map data would be superior to sole OpenStreetMap data.
• Map makers could prioritize geographic areas and use OpenStreetMap data in low priority areas while capturing their own primary data in high priority areas (or gradually replacing OSM data by own map data).
• There is currently no incentive to invest in tools for editing and quality assurance for companies that would work on the map only in their proprietary format.

Positive aspects

• Map makers continuously see licensing fees replaced by platform revenues (free maps with a revenue share from obligatory advertising). The intellectual property on the map becomes less important and differentiation will be stronger driven by the monetization effectiveness rather than coverage or completeness. For this reason, commercial map makers could increasingly rely on OpenStreetMap and replace areas of their own maps as soon as OSM data is superior in a certain region. This would reduce map production costs.
• If OpenStreetMap data appears on more Medias, such as web sites and mobile applications, this increased visibility could bring new contributing community members to the project.

Conclusion

Currently, it is very difficult to say if the positive or negative aspects of a lesser restrictive share-alike license would be dominant. Such a step would be gamble with an open ended conclusion. The outcomes would be mainly reliant on whether the OSM data would be used in an opportunistic or a strategic way when linking against proprietary data.

Time and again in recent days, I have been wondering if and how indoor maps will fit into the OpenStreetMap project. Indoor maps require maps on top of each other to deal with floors. Technically, this is easily possible as long as the maps themselves remain 2D.

However, there are a few questions that have been keeping me occupied:

• Can the 3^rd dimension of indoor maps be added at a later stage or should one be able to capture full 3D models straight from the beginning?
• To what extent are indoor maps subject to privacy protection? Does the CCBYSA, and respectively the ODBL license, make sense for areas which might be sensitive to privacy issues?
• What technology do people need to capture indoor maps? Which gadgets will take over the role of the GPS receiver for street maps?

There are many other aspects to consider when you want to create services for indoors maps, like positioning systems and so on. However, I am currently paying more attention to the map related part. Some companies like Micello apply the typical commercial maps provider approach to indoor maps. I don’t believe in this approach – especially as the value creation in the mapping and location business is shifting from the licensing business to the platform and service business. Rather than deciding on the maps provider based on their license costs, developers choose the map platform that provides the best APIs and monetization opportunities (such as advertising integration).