- From: James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:14:07 -0700
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Jeremy Keith <jeremy at adactio.com> wrote: > Michelango wrote: >>... >> 3. Maps data are often non-free and non-open, reliable maps data are >> always non-free and non-open. > > The second clause of point 3 is demonstrably false. Said demonstration is http://www.openstreetmap.org/ which in many cases (e.g. the town I live in) has better, more up-to-date reliable data than its non-free, non-open counterparts. > > See also: Wikipedia, blogs, and much of the World Wide Web.... The Wikimedia California Chapter initial funding proposal has some interactive map work in it, if people are interested. I've been trying to raise money for it but it's been going pretty slow. Anyone who cares can find it on line. It needs $150,000 plus management salary to get going as a viable concern. The point here is that even free things take time and/or money to get right and and get open right. Locations should have security considerations similar to contacts. It seems reasonable to assume that people are going to want to download them more than upload them, unless they have a very tightly controlled assumption about of the list of recipients, and some assurance that their assumptions are correct. Also locations share a lot in common with the user's contacts, of course, including the fact that at least one is associated with the user. (Telepresence is an interesting example of a situation where a person may be associated with multiple locations, but those are so rare that example seems contrived.) Regards, James Salsman
Received on Friday, 25 June 2010 15:14:07 UTC