Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I definitely know a lot about the places I visit and want to share it with everyone. I want to know if donating and volunteering at OpenStreetMap—which is where I have been helping—is a waste of time: it is possible that it is all for naught to help on such a relatively low-trafficked site. On the other hand, I am concerned about the closed, commercial nature of Google Maps, even though the traffic is high and my knowledge would likely get more reuse. Where should I help with collaborative mapping?

share|improve this question
I'd rather put my effort to a "low-trafficked site" than to a company that will then charge for the data I've given them freely. And since even Apple chose to steal data from OSM, I guess it's not that low-trafficked ;) – Igor Brejc May 5 '12 at 11:23
Given Apples track record, they are more likely to steal the data, patent it, then sue everyone who comes near it ;) – Nathan W May 6 '12 at 4:54
Actually, Apple added attribution now:… — which is awesome news. – Derick May 9 '12 at 19:28
Great question, but shouldn't this be a community wiki? – Tanner Aug 2 '12 at 2:13
Seconded. Should be a community wiki as there is no definitive answer. It's a judgement call. – R.K. Sep 17 '12 at 8:40

Of course it is ultimately up to you, but i would hesitate to call working with Open Street Map a waste of time.

While it is true that the OSM user base is small right now, there are factors that affect both Google and OSM. The primary issue is that now that Google has started to charge for levels of use of their API, a number of companies and organizations are switching to OSM. The list includes Apple, Foursquare, and Wikipedia mobile apps. It looks like more may switch as well, which could increase the user base significantly.
This is one aspect.

The other, and that which seems more important to me is the idea of open access to data. As a Geographer and GIS professional, having access to high quality datasets is critical for me to do my job. Having access that can not be compromised is even more important. The OSM dataset is licensed as Creative Commons, Share alike, so anyone may use it. Google data is privately owned and while this likely won't happen, they could close it off tomorrow and charge everyone for access, whether you helped improve the dataset or not.

I know that here in the United States access to data is a big issue. A lot of time and money is spent collecting and building the datasets, and a big question is who should pick up this cost. There are arguments either way. I am sure this is an issue in other parts of the world as well, especially in places where there are not as many sources of data like streets available for people to use.

This is a pretty hot topic you picked here, with strong, valid feelings on both sides. Google has every right to charge for their data, and make a profit. People have the same right to build their own dataset and make it available to everyone. There is nothing to say you can't support both, just don't sell one short over the other without researching on your own, and drawing your own conclusions.

I hope this was helpful.

share|improve this answer
of course helping out with OSM gives you a good warm fuzzy feeling for helping the community, like most open source. – Nathan W May 5 '12 at 12:59

It's worth noting that at Google Maps, you're not 'donating' your geographic knowledge -- you are giving your geographic knowledge to a for-profit corporate entity, who have a duty to their shareholders to use their position as a majority data holder in the worldwide map data market to increase the value of their company.

This means that the data that you give to Google is not necessarily something that you can get back out and do what you want with. For example, if you imagine that you start a business making GPS Maps for Bikes, or some such, down the road, getting the data that you give to Google back out for use in the product you want to sell may be difficult, or simply a violation of the Terms of Service which you would not be allowed to pursue.

OpenStreetMap is openly licensed dataset. It is created and supported by more than 500,000 editors, and the data is available for libre (that is, 'free as in freedom') use under the terms of the ODBL, which would allow you to make the GPS Maps For Bikes app without needing to pay a licensing fee to anyone.

Data you add to Google Maps is collectively licensed to Google. (Your individual contributions presumably have relatively limited value outside the collection of data, as is the case in almost any map-making effort.) If you do something Google doesn't want, then they can say No, and shut you down. Innovation by third parties outside the scope of what limitations Google provides for is not allowed.

OpenStreetMap data is openly licensed and managed by a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the use of geographic information around the world. If no one has done the new cool thing that you want to do -- you can get the data, and do it.

Short term, you may get more out of Google -- with a massive corporate investment in user-targeted tools, and a massive investment in initial data -- but over time, OpenStreetMap's openly licensed data is likely to be the more sustainable solution. With half a million editors, and the growing investment from national mapping agencies around the globe, I can't imagine any way in which OSM is not the more appropriate map provider to support for the long term.

share|improve this answer

In addition to the other excellent comments here, the biggest advantage I see to OSM data is two aspects of ease of access:

  1. Editing is far more straightforward, particularly with a large area that is previously unmapped, or (worse yet) badly mapped. JOSM, QGIS and other tools let you update large areas, correct or add data in bulk. Working on areas here in Tanzania that are poorly covered by OSM and Google (click links to see example of same area), OSM is far, far better for editing.
  2. With this comes better access to data for offline mapping. While both APIs give you great access to maps (and Google's gives you more options and are prettier), OSM can be downloaded monthly for any area of interest. Google's given us access to road data (shapefiles) for Tanzania before but it takes time.

(1) in particular has been annoying recently. I have battled with Google editors for approval of known bad data, or not had my GPS-derived roads approved because it doesn't match with the 8-year old satellite data!

Of course, the ease of access is only really with us because of the small base of users. The more open it gets, the more problems we'll have with validation and vandalism.

Update: great example of how a community can quickly map poorly-covered areas, see the Ramani Tandale project, which also has an Ushahidi crowdmapping instance running.

share|improve this answer

I personally prefer Google. Here's why:

  1. Charging for the API is a strategic move against apple. Unless your app has over 25,000 queries a day, you'll never pay a dime. Want to guess how many organizations query at that volume against Google maps?
  2. Google maps is backed by awesome software engineering that you can leverage to your own ends.
  3. Contributing to Google means you (and others in your organization or whatever) have the potential to get more out of the contriubtions.
    Donating to Google increases the accessibility of your contributions. Google maps is used the whole world over, and in every kind of organization.

If not Google, why not both? Helping one doesn't exclude you from helping the other.

share|improve this answer
I fail to see how Google's presumed motives for charging for their Maps API would make you, or anyone favor Google over OpenStreetMap as the recipient of their geospatial knowledge. Also, contributing to both is not really an alternative. You can only spend your time and energy once. – mvexel May 9 '12 at 18:13
I don't really care one way or the other, I was just offering an opinion. Let me offer one more: Noting google's presumed motives was aimed at reassuring the question-asker that ma and pa mapmaker wouldn't be getting a $20,000 bill from Google because they wanted to put a map on their website. On your other point, I think you may have just inadvertently made a case for Google maps. True, time and effort are limited. With my limited time and energies I could update 1000 points in Google, or 100 in OSM. I'll take Google, thanks. – jdb1a1 May 9 '12 at 19:00
I'm not saying Google Maps is not a great and very useful tool for a lot of people. It is. However, if you choose to contribute your time and energy to Google MapMaker, you are helping out a for-profit company to increase the value of their product, for free. Making the product available to low-volume users free of charge does not change that. But thanks for clarifying, it's clear to me now what the point is you were trying to make. – mvexel May 9 '12 at 19:14
On your other observation: yes, it takes less time for most to make a simple contribution to Google than to OSM. Not 10 times less (especially if you consider that a few people need to look at the contribution before it's final), but it's a valid point. – mvexel May 9 '12 at 19:35
Not to be overly pedantic, but google maps is currently free. It may not be free in the future. – djq May 21 '12 at 6:46

Go with Google. They currently provide a very good free service to everyone in the world for free. It is always being developed by a very large team and the data is very accessible and usable through the Google set of products which millions use.

The mapping architecture and software developed by Google values the user 1st most and Google only makes money from users through the showing of advertisements, not directly charging the user.

Selling API access to their database is reasonable, and only large websites ever have that issue, but who cares? If you're not running a website then it doesn't matter to you at all!

share|improve this answer

Donate it to Google. Yes, they'll profit from it, but if I understand correctly, you want to share with people who need it, and where will most people make their searches? Yes, Google Maps. It's easier for people to just do a Google search of a place, directions, etc, than going to openstreetmap. That's the truth. GIS professionals however, seem to prefer OSM. I on the other hand prefer Google. Hope this helps.

share|improve this answer

Mind to share your location you want to shared at ?

You can shared location in listing form by category you decide it. like this :

share|improve this answer
As a new user please take the Tour. Your answer here has been flagged by the system as low quality and a user has flagged it as spam. I made a quick judgement call and deleted it but having looked longer I am going to reverse that. I recommend that you expand upon your answer, using the edit button beneath it, to try and reverse the downvotes it has attracted so far. – PolyGeo Mar 18 '15 at 8:33

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.