Talk:Google Map Maker
Discuss the Google map maker page here:
I've moved the page to "Google map maker" from it's previous title "Leading the pack". More logical findable linkable title.
I also did a bit of rewrite with the aim of making it a good place to link people to who are fans of google map maker, to explain why they shouldn't be. More work to do on this though. Maybe try to slim it down a little, and link to another page comparing "product features". But I also need to describe more on why google's launch of map maker is in fact evil
-- Harry Wood 10:19, 29 June 2011 (BST)
- My main issue with the page is that we obviously don't know who the intended audience is. There is too much techno-bable for a non-techie newbie, there is no compelling story for the media (not that there isn't one, the page just doesn't tell one) and the typical OSM nerd doesn't really need convincing in the first place.
- If we just want a page where we more or less say GMM sucks for our own amusement, then it is OK, for anything else .....
- -- Simon Poole - 16 September 2011, 21:02
- Yes. Looking back on what I've written I agree that I've gone into technicalities a bit too much. I would like this to be a page with a short compelling message for the media. I think I achieved that with the top coloured boxes, but the explanation of "downstream services" gets too technical But at the time it felt like it was necessary to explain fully. So this is why I'm now thinking perhaps a separate page should compare google maps more generally (and more technically) -- Harry Wood 22:29, 16 September 2011 (BST)
- I would support splitting the page. We do have a "Press" section in the wiki and we could potentially add a page there (have to think a bit about that). Our 2nd audience is the mapper who has dabbled a bit with GMM and whom we should show with a couple of use cases why it is actually attractive to have direct access to the data and therefore contribute to OSM. Something along the lines of using Maperitive to create a custom map of your vicinity (is probably too complicated), using OSM data to navigate with your favorite device and so on. Besides a separate technical comparison, it may be a good idea to compare the legal side of things, Googles ToS are quite interesting and I wonder how many of their mappers have actually read the Indemnity clause for example. SimonPoole 23:03, 16 September 2011 (BST)
Unrelated to my first comment: while we don't explicitly say so, you could get the message from the text that you have to choose between GMM and OSM. It is naturally quite OK to submit the same data to both services (as long as it is actually original data from the mapper) and neither service requires exclusivity. SimonPoole 22:48, 16 September 2011 (BST)
Love the smileys - more (info)graphics
I think visual presentation is very important for this page if we want it to be a nice and tidy "at a glance" comparison of OSM and Google Map Maker. Perhaps some simple visualization of the process of contributing and then using the data would help. I mean: have a stick figure do a survey, then enter the data with a computer and later try to use it in some way (like produce a custom map, print or whatever). Compare between OSM and GMM, at the end use happy/sad smileys. Just an idea... I'm no artist, I'm sure someone could come up with some cool infographic. Visually I mean something like  for example. Paweł Paprota (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Simple visualisation of the process of contributing... doesn't belong on this page. I mean clearly it's good to present that information to people, but putting here would be a case of "introduction duplication". More visualisation/infographics in the Beginners' guide could be good of course.
- Another approach I suppose would be to bring in some "About OpenStreetMap" information, or a quick contributing guide infographic, as a template. That could be bunged on various pages which we identify as "landing pages" like this one, where new visitors are likely to be linked e.g. via press mentions.
- -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I meant that the visualization would compare GMM with OSM, not introduce people to OSM - that's a different topic. So seemingly you are doing the same thing (mapping) but at the end Google "robs" you of your work. Or maybe something like more fact-oriented information - a table with comparison of what you can do in/with OSM and GMM - this one I can actually take a stab at as it does not require too much visual skills. Paweł Paprota (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here is a quick draft of the table: User:Ppawel/OSMvsGMM. Let me know what you think. It could be expanded further with more facts of course. Paweł Paprota (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Linking to similar resources
I have just started doing a little research to contribute more to this page. I'm specifically interested in finding some facts about GMM and comparing them to OSM in a nice table form. I thought it may be good to link to such resources. E.g. http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/24820/openstreetmap-or-google-map-maker-where-should-i-donate-and-volunteer-my-geogra - not exactly a scientific resource but still "food for thought" for anyone who wants to explore the topic. What do you think? Paweł Paprota (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- More stuff just for reference:
This page should be rewritten
There new landing page now: Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service, see also Template:Comparison_with_other_mapping_projects.
- I like the idea of a more generalised page describes the main difference which applies to lots of different things (Open Licensing!) and the happy/sad boxes belong there too.
- But we do need to duplicate that information here now, because this is a popular landing page. The happy/sad licensing point is the important simple message we're trying to get across to all the people the land here (and is the reason why the page gets heavily linked) . We shouldn't move it.
- You're saying "This page should be rewritten", I guess mainly because of this duplication. I don't think it's too much of a problem, but maybe we could improve things by making some of this into a re-useable template.
- -- Harry Wood (talk)
- Not big problem, but it will bloat over time. See Wikimapia for example. With only 4 points covered, it is 3k already. If we add pictures (smileys are quite space consuming) and several other points and generic text on top of that this will become wall of text. Wall of text is not good for "landing page". Futhermore, we need to leave pages Wikimapia and Google Map Maker with direct comparsion between services. So we can give links to Wikimapia users and not generic text "free licence is good" (at Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service).
- Actually Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service is not replacement to Google Map Maker. You may refer to these pages like this:
- [[Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service|closed license is bad]] and [[Google Map Maker|there way more problems in project X]].
- Project X will be different from region to region. Викимапия и "Народные карты" is way more popular than Google Map Maker in some regions. Same for Brazil and their Tracksource. Xxzme (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)