The data OSM provides is immensely valuable and enables some really empowering applications.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Aerial_Imagery
The current title here on HN which is just wrong is: Microsoft contributed 5PB street view data to OpenStreetMap.
(edit: my mistake, there is a license of sorts, see the comment below)
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/5050#issuecomment-3...
Question 3 is the interesting part giving some examples of how they expect it to be used and an example of how it shouldn't be used.
it's not. They've lost their dominant position (mind-share wise at least) and is clamouring to get it back. Google, on the other hand, has gained a dominant position, and got complacent lately; and people are starting to lose faith in them.
But in the end, the goal is to ensure they have good PR.
It’s probably not related, but who knows.
I would like to contribute to an open source community that can have work with OSM, freely. Is there an option for this? Other than mapillary.
I think it will be a while before there is a community project accepting many gigabytes of photos every day.
I still don't think it would be too tricky to do and would nicely decouple the fundamental storage/hosting problem from all the other problems that might need solving.
What I thought was particularly interesting was how EXIF data tends to be near the beginning of a JFIF file which could allow "cheap" bulk scanning of jpeg metadata by using http 1.1 ranges.... who knows.
Until them I'm stuck with Google Maps.
So yeah, it looks easy at first glance.
I don't know what your vocation is, but avoiding Windows, Office and/or Exchange is a choice a very large number of people cannot make.
grumble
If ChromeOS doesn't take off, I wonder if Google could be temporarily locked out of mainstream desktops and laptops in the AI assistant race.
Yet they don't. So either they're not as scary as "Microsoft was even at its peak", or maybe they're not as powerful as you make them out to be.
If MS harmed you, you'd know. If Google intends to harm you, it looks like a stroke of bad luck.
All they have to do is hide the tree (you the person they intend to harm) within the forest (thousands of other sites/businesses) affected by the same policy change.
You could go months without finding out. And if you ever do, it's extremely difficult to prove foul play.
It is not possible truly to know one way or another at a complete level, although it is unlikely. Saying they are not this powerful is, well, simply not true. It is not possible without creating a huge skunk-works internal project binding people to secrecy.
Google doesn't have the power to bind people to secrecy in the same way that say, the CIA, FBI, or NSA do. It does not mean that they do not have the capability of doing these things.
http://www.smeinsider.com/2015/06/23/google-is-ruining-small...
for one