It looks like the new update to Google Maps gives us more than we thought. Sure the parks looks nice in a blog post, but if I’m reading the tea leaves right, Google is now using their own data in at least parts of the world.
Some open data is being claimed copyright Google
So I think this means that what we all expected to happen, did. Tele Atlas is gone from the maps as far as I can tell and we now report our errors right back to Google.
Questions arise though… Where did Google get this info from? I’m guessing that it is USGS, MapMaker and probably some TIGER data. Plus they’ve also cut deals with local organizations to get vectors. The parcels, who knows… But if counties are giving it to Google and charging the public, we’ve got problems. Also do they have rights to republish the data in the first place (due diligence)? If I make corrections to their data, will they push those back to the organizations that donated the data or keep it themselves (and in turn own the data outright)?
Right now most of this looks visual as I can’t seem to access the parcels via their API. Only a matter of time I suppose.
Looks like Google is going to walk on over all data providers, open or not.
168 Comments
Maybe they quietly bought the relevant bit of one of the many recently defunct title companies for the parcel data.
Incidentally, I was at the building department yesterday and the planners were using streetview to review applications — pretty easy to imagine that google could offer some sort of in-kind service to counties in exchange for whatever data they need, and there must be some incentives to share data so that they themselves can sort through and use it. Not that my local gov’s ArcIMS 3.0 system doesn’t have impressive IE 5 compatibility, but they seem to have trouble keeping up.
Well that is just it right? Where did they get this data is as important as the data itself. If they are reselling these maps with their enterprise services, then I’m sure we should be aware of what we are paying for. With Tele Atlas we know what we are getting and what accuracy we can expect.
Now, who knows…..
Good questions. I discovered that their new data also includes university campuses, including the one I work for (MU). I’d really like to know where they got their building data from because it wasn’t from my organization. Also, they have labeled several buildings that we have been instructed not to identify on public maps due to security issues. There are lots of errors in the data they’re showing for our campus and I’d really like to know how to get it corrected.
Hi Renee,
You can report these problems directly on the map using the new Report a problem function.
Also, if you’re an authoritative source, you can give us data to correct it here: http://maps.google.com/help/maps/basemap/
Mano Marks
Thank you Mano! I found the “Report a Problem” feature shortly after reading this post:) I’m going to look into the partnership program right now!
Ha ha ha… and this my friends, answers the questions of where they got their data. People being enthusiastic about joining their partnership program. Can we also get some OSM love please?
The City of Surrey, BC, Canada (cosmos.surrey.ca) gave their data to Google. They have integrated the 2008 Orthos, but still no parcels. Canadians always come last! At least we finally got Google Street View!
http://streetviewgallery.corank.com
Interestingly, I asked @manomarks if they have a list of the new data items, but he said no. So either they purposefully want to be quiet about it, or hopefully we’ll see it soon so they can shed some light.
Agreed with James’s concerns, intriguing but troubling.
It looks like google is also using the parcels for their reverse geocoding, but I’m not clear on their logic. Clicking around in my neighborhood, I usually get the right address for the parcel, but with an irregular shaped parcels (around a cul de sac) I can get different addresses for different points within the same parcel. It’s like they’re using point in polygon, but against a slightly different set of polygons than those displayed.
It will be interesting to see if they work out a format analogous to the google transit feed spec, but for parcels. Seems like qa/qc for appraisal district parcels could potentially be crowdsourced. Right click and choose “This is not my beautiful house!”.
There are way too many issues here. I hope The G has thought them out well. If not — I am available for consulting (been doing GIS parcel development for 17+ years).
In addition to (or before) data ownership and data source, here are a few more: what is the intended purpose; who is the intended audience; what/where are the attributes; where is the metadata; what is the positional accuracy…
Things get heated up pretty quickly when individual property rights are at stake (or are perceived as being at stake), and The G will find that out very quickly.
Well at least for my County in California the parcels (as well as the roads)originate with the County. The same bad data exists in some places. We don’t care as the data is available to anyone but I don’t know if someone is aggregating them for Google. I guess I can say I work for google now. I did notice that Orange County and Santa Clara County (two of the counties that have been fighting to sell their parcel data) are parcel free.
I can tell you right now we’ve got issues here. Parcels are showing up for my region in Google’s map.
I didn’t approve this.
We can see by the parcels that this data is a couple years old so tracking down who gave it to Google will be difficult.
Obviously there are huge issues with this process and I have to question Google’s research on who actually has the right to give data to them. We don’t sell parcels, but if you are going to resell our data, then we’ve got a problem.
“I didn’t approve this.”
This encapsulates data sharing problems through the years. The technical issues have largely been solved or can easily be solved where there is a will. Unfortunately, too many GIS technologists think it is “their” data, and “they” must approve.
Google and Microsoft and others are steamrolling right through this attitude, whether by contracting with companies (BSI?) that aggregate parcel data or business dealing directly with the elected officials (County Commissioners, Councils, etc) who represent the real owners (taxpayers), not the technologists.
Good for Google on this one, and I bet it goes a long way toward opening up data and discussion.
The technical issues may have been solved but not the legal issues. State and local governments can hold a copyright and many do when it comes to their GIS data. Therefore Google does not have the right to use this data unless they acquire the proper permissions from the data owner.
Now if they created the data themselves from digitizing the maps… that’s allowed. But they cannot just take State and Local data without permission due to the copyright law. Otherwise every data provider in the world would be out of business tomorrow. (And before you say that’s a good thing … think about the cost it takes to create the data and who should pay for it. No one is going to create data that someone else is just going to steal and give away.)
Which States can hold a copyright or allow their munis to hold a copyright on GIS data without express legislative authorization? Maybe licensing, but copyright? Microdecisions v Skinner only applies inside Florida, but that pretty much shot a hole in the ability to copyright state and municipal GIS data. (County of Santa Clara v California First Amendment Coalition has a similar effect for California, and further damages any copyright argument in other states.)
The Copyright law only prohibits the Federal Government from holding copyright, not state or local governments. However a state or local government can give up this right depending on how their FOIA laws are written. Every state is different. You would need to check carefully in each state for the relevant laws. I can’t speak to Florida or California. I don’t live there.
Yep, I knew it varied by state; I just have never heard of a state that allows copyright holdings on GIS data.
“No one is going to create data that someone else is just going to steal and give away”
What about OpenStreetMap?
GIS user for 20 years and watching with interest. Like the recording industry holding back a tidal wave with a prayer. Fun fun fun jump on board or miss the boat…or in the case of the recording industry well that boat sailed a long time ago hahaha.
Where did i read recently that thing sorta related to the 80% rule? Hmmm musta been about how 80% of people don’t care if 20% of the data is wrong. I appreciate spatial scientists, surveyors, legal eagles and meta data men everywhere still need accuracy and licensing to be maintained but that’s over 4.8 billion people theoretically that it wont even blink at the wave coming……
So when does the licensing model change?
And Atanas’ statement “There are way too many issues here” is quite true from the perspective of a GIS professional, but as seen by the legal hornet’s nest stirred up by Google Books, they can throw a lot of legal firepower at dealing with entanglements that come from an aggregate-now, ask-questions-later posture.
Frankly, the burden of creating basic parcel-lookup applications is one that many, if not most, city and counties would be happy to offload to Google, especially in this time of severe budgetary constraints. So I’m not sure the technical concerns of we professionals count for a lot in the mind of a County Commissioner who sees an easy win-win with Google making information more accessible while saving significant budget dollars.
I hate it when the future arrives before I’m fully prepared.
Brian
Brian:
There is at least one significant difference between Google Books and digital parcel data. Google Books handles a finished product, and need only rectify ownership issues (significant as they are). GIS parcel data, on the other hand, is an ever-changing beast, never finished. GIS parcel data maintenance is a bigger issue to tackle than GIS parcel data creation. For GIS parcel data to be useful to anybody, it must be fresh. Many of my municipal GIS clients update their parcel data on a daily basis. How will Google handle that?
You thought Google had problems with people finding their images on Street View. Wait till property owners “find out” (by comparing the parcel boundary to the aerial) that they have been “cheated” out of half a foot of their property. I can smell the stink already.
“Wait till property owners “find out” (by comparing the parcel boundary to the aerial) that they have been “cheated” out of half a foot of their property.” I think the bigger issue that this brings up is how to educate the broader public on the limitations of all this data overlay. With different scales, precision, and accuracy of the various datasets, measuring the exact property line and comparing it to the aerials is impossible at that scale. Unfortunately, most of the general audience doesn’t understand this and will take the data overlay at face value.
This isn’t Google’s “problem”.
Even my county’s GIS data (which is where Google gets its data) isn’t good enough for those kinds of disputes.
That would involve a survey done by a licensed surveyor.
Nobody is going to be able to claim property ownership by printing out a Google map and showing it to the legal authorities. They will be laughed away.
They can’t do that with county GIS data, either, so Google would be no different.
Exactly. I deal with these issues all the time. People seem to think the pretty maps on the internet are legally meaningful. THEY ARE NOT. Hell, – the monuments on the ground (or even the maps at the local assessor’s office) aren’t even particularly legally meaningful. What IS legally meaningful is a deed. You own what your deed says you own, plain and simple. The deed is the document that has real legal standing.
Actually, if and when available, the monuments typically hold primacy in the boundary on the ground. The deed primarly presribes rights therein. Most mappers are used to mathematical defenitions described in metes and bounds. What about descriptions that begin at a rock marked with an X and then going in a general direction to a blazed tree on a creek bank and so on back to the beginning with no traditional geometric description. The deed is not a stand alone document, the monuments on the ground hold sway and are incorporated into the abstract document via their description. Most property mappers are only used to seeing boundaries in the simplest terms, and if those terms aren’t clear to them at their desk, while bing crystal clear to anyone at the physical site, think the descibed boundary is invalid. Not true; maybe not mappable in the abstract, but not an invalid document. There’s the rub, with geographers who because they may use deed descriptions in their work think they fully understand the legal conscripts of surveying and boundary descriptions. True enough, the Google maps and even local government maps have no legal bearing on proprty boundaries or rights; the document and physical evidence do.
The tax map is a memorandum of findings. No more, no less. The GIS parcel map is not even a tax map; it is even further removed from the deed.
The question is, how to explain this to the general public, other than with a general disclaimer: “See this here map? It’s wrong.”
Brian Just wait until they put on the FEMA floodplain maps over the parcel layer. People who would never dream of claiming an extra foot or so of property based on Google will instead insist on an official floodplain determination based on a web display. Bruce
I can’t wait to see the storm that results when this happens. The true (read: data) will set you free. Rock on Google!
OK, well I’m the first one to celebrate the death of Navteq and TeleAtlas, but I’m curious as to how good this data is. At least with OSM I can look at the data and make that decision and with the legacy data providers, me paying for data gives me some power.
This seems to be a poor place for us to be. Using data we don’t know a thing about.
I’m curious to understand as well how Google obtained parcel data. You can purchase the entire parcel database from Los Angeles County for $7. Perhaps, at least for that county, Google forked over the money? In any case, Google isn’t the first entity to wholesale compile parcel data. I remember a while back (although the company’s name escapes me) an effort to obtain parcel data through the public information act that had a lot of local agencies in California up in a tizzy.
First American is the company that immediately came to my mind as a possible source of the parcel data. They’ve been extremely aggressive in trying to obtain parcels from local government GIS programs, and from what I’ve heard, even going as far as buying reams of tax maps when local government GIS licensing terms and/or fees aren’t to their liking.
http://www.firstam.com/product.cfm?id=7264&menu=722
Google didn’t pay shit for this crap. They roll into city/county with “free” google earth pro licenses and the city/county gives them everything for free.
Happened to us and I know someone out on the left coast who had the same sales pitch.
After a little bit of experimenting I determined that the Parcels in The Portland Area date from before Feb 2007. As I was querying addresses on lots added since feb 2007 I noticed that none of them geocoded. I suspect that googles new geocoder is somehow tied to the quality of the parcel data but can’t confirm this.
Strangely, It appears that parcel datasets from both late 2006 and early 2007 occupy the same space on the map in some areas.
The source on the Google maps simply says Google so it’s impossible to know where they got the data. I imagine the question of sources will just keep popping up as more folks realize whats happened. I have been getting word from all over the state that government folks are pretty dismayed and trying to figure this out.
Hah… looks like Google decided that New York st, in Redlands is open to through traffic again. Funny… I could swear that there was a new ESRI building crossing that street a few hours ago.
Before the update this road was closed in gmaps (it has been closed for over 2 years now).
At least it matches their outdated aerials as well.
Interesting move. I’m sure Tele Atlas was ready for this as they probably knew as long as any of us that this day would come.
No parcels in my area, but I’m in the middle of nowhere. If they can build a national parcel database and put it behind their API. Count me as a convert.
Seems TeleAtlas had no clue that it’s coming. Their message indicates they were not ready and caught unprepared. Not sure that there will not be lawsuits as the knowledge Google gained from Teleatlas and Navteq as it is probably the basis for the building of the maps. Now I wonder what will be with navigation… And then I wonder whether Google will not be broken down to separate companies as they are dumping prices (to free) by making money in other markets…
This definitely raises a lot of interesting questions, like will we now get real time turn by turn directions in iPhone maps, which was previously prohibited by Tele Atlas licensing terms? Will Google sell / license its data and compete with Tele Atlas and NAVTEQ? More thoughts on my blog at http://su.pr/1LwhL5
A sea change, and we’re the first bunch of nerds to witness.
Something to remember about virtually any licensed product: a derivative work, one that substantially alters and obscures the original content, is yours. One might (or at least Dave Drummond sure will) aver that the extractive/fused content they now serve meets that criteria. Does it? I’m sure Google has done much in advance to avoid legal challenges; it’s bad business to spend money on such things.
Although the permutations are endless, I’d wager we’re seeing something like this: Google is still using (and will for some time) TeleAtlas streets and turn-by-turn data, fusing it with crowd-sourced comments, PoI updates of their own, and ancillary content such as derived parcel geometries. They will need one or the other of the turn-by-turn databases to serve up directions – can’t get that off ‘roll your own’ linework.
I’m interested to see Google’s strategic direction as TeleAtlas’ TomTom mobile reporting systems begin flowing back to their user base and TA resells the service, whether cell-based traffic flow monitoring systems outpace (outslow??) the TA crowd, and crowd sources such as OSM, etc. find traction for the pure geometry of the streets. Will these compete with Google or augment their services?
As for Google competing with TA or Navteq…why bother with retail and unique licensing when you can make more money by giving it all away.
Oh, one other item…parcels? Those aren’t parcels. That line work is a rough graphic that shows land areas. Parcels are legal documents, and none of us should confuse what Google is doing with a legally-binding instrument.
Second thread comment -
If Google has cut a deal with 1st American or Navteq or done it themselves to produce these outlines, I think it’s fantastic…one of the most essential elements in disaster response and recovery is who lives where and what is the impact relative to those people.
With parcel outlines, current imagery can be added to show evacuated citizens (and those prevaricating twits in Washington who have talked about this for years but can’t get off the pot to get it done) where things have occurred, and what has happened to local structures and assets.
Google deserves a massive, whole-hearted round of applause.
And FEMA and DHS deserve a big, loud, wet raspberry for knowing exactly what the problem is, knowing exactly what the solution could be, knowing exactly how to get it done, having the budget to do the work…and yet doing nothing.
“Parcels are legal documents, and none of us should confuse what Google is doing with a legally-binding instrument.” — None of us does, but rest assured that the general public will. And will they en masse.
I agree with Kos’s comment — it appears that The G has finally bitten off too much.
Judging by the vitriol heaped on the Googlers that have had the effrontery to post such geometries, one might aver we do in fact think that way.
The general public won’t confuse the outlines with a legally-binding instrument because most folks don’t particularly care about the legal issues that are attendant to the outline…they just wanna see their house.
And if they do, the legal construct surrounding a plat and the registry thereof will quickly prevent them from such usage. As will our friends in the legal profession who depend on the transmittal and attestation of the veracity of these items for their livelihoods.
Archie:
The general public will confuse the outlines with a legally-binding instrument BECAUSE IT CAME FROM THE COMPUTER. Take it from someone who’s been dealing with this, in the trenches, for 15+ years.
There’s no vitriol.
Okay, Antanas – so some might think it’s legal. That’ll stop soon as they engage with the legal system. And if it doesn’t, shame on the judge that makes that ruling…which will be overturned soon.
There’s absolutely nothing that can prevent ‘the general public” from thinking what they want to think. Some believe Trimble controls the GPS constellation, too. And that Google owns satellites that image the earth in real time (wait, they might soon).
My point is what people THINK doesn’t really matter, it’s what people DO that does…and I like that Google is giving people more information with which to do things that they’re thinking about. That it ruffles the feathers of the geocognoscenti (us) is, perhaps, a very healthy thing.
And yes, sure…I’ve seen it too. 23 years and counting, since we appear to be.
Well said.
Notice that Google has not made the parcel boundaries visible over the air photos (yet) — without that overlay function the parcel representation is, I think, too abstract for most folks. The rubber hits the road when you can actually ‘confirm’ that your neighbor’s pool is over the line. I’m sure that ability is coming.
@Atanas, et al,
Absolutely there are currency and precision issues.
But it’s not much of a stretch to imagine the next chess move: Google “reaches out” to partner with any public entity and gives them a custom login where they can upload the latest parcel shapefile into Big Table and Google promises fresh map tiles in 1-2 weeks or whatever.
By offering this “free” service, the burden shifts to the individual city/county/muni to ensure the info is fresh as they field calls from irate users looking at outdated data.
A little bit diabolical maybe, but then “free” always creates a bit of moral leeway.
BT
“Google “reaches out” to partner with any public entity and gives them a custom login where they can upload the latest parcel shapefile into Big Table and Google promises fresh map tiles in 1-2 weeks or whatever.”
Kind of like this? http://maps.google.com/help/maps/basemap/
@Brian:
I will be very interested to see how Google approaches the Herculean task of managing the GIS parcel data custodians (566 different entities in New Jersey alone) and enticing them to regularly update their data. From where I sit, cleaning the Augean stables seems like a child’s task by comparison.
I may be wrong, but it looks like Google is yet to encounter the greatest force on Earth — inertia.
Nice. Google pushes everyone.
I can confirm that up here in Northern end of Northern California, the parcel bases match the county bases exactly. Interestingly enough, we called the GIS director at one county and he didn’t know Google had his parcels, and a second county, which has repeatedly refused to share its parcels with anyone, has its parcels in Google too.
If you want to see the match, go to http://pv.enplan.com, switch to Maps view, and zoom in until you see parcels. You’ll see our tile layer from the county shapefiles overlay in white over Google’s dark grey parcel lines.
@Chris
I get paid to be the gatekeeper by our elected officials. We give our data out free via our website for non-commercial use. If you want to use it for profit, you must license it.
Once we determine how our parcel data got in without a signed agreement, then we can determine our response.
Just because you can get our parcels for free on our website doesn’t mean you can use them for free in a commercial setting.
More than one source of parcel data exists for many areas. For years now conversion companies and Entrepreneurs have been converting tax maps which are readily available to the public, but not in a user friendly format. An unfortunate duplication of efforts due many times to restrictive policies or costs implimented by county officials. Why?
Sort of related news story.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_13508253
Interesting. “OPEN (data) SOURCE”
Makes you wonder if/how much Google helped support First Amendment Coalition’s legal battle.
No need for Google’s support. There are lawyers standing by that will take a FOIA/Sunshine denial KNOWING that they will get paid by the government entity when the case is decided. Search “foia lawyers” for a list.
Even a 10% win rate is money for them. Most of the case is boilerplate.
My great-great grandmother used to say “follow the money” and she wasn’t talking about licensing, creative commons or otherwise.
At least in Laredo, Texas, some of the data seems to be based on an older dump of OpenStreetMap (or someone copying from it). I recognize some of my own edits.
I think you must be mistaken. Google would be welcome to use OpenStreetMap data, but only if they follow the attribution and share-alike terms of the OSM license ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_License ). I don’t see any credits to OpenStreetMap on there, or any move to release their map data with an open license.
Hey, the sky is falling…….Mapquest has parcels too -
http://devblog.mapquest.com/2009/07/30/premium-data-sets-now-available/
Information is power and it’s best kept locked up with the government in order to keep the people ignorant.
I for one am exceedingly happy that Google is blowing right through this bureaucratic nightmare of getting what should be PUBLIC data out so it can really be used. The FOIA should be extended to state and local governments with clearly stated, REASONABLE prices specified for making copies or downloading. These local governments just hoard any data they have in order to make a little money and keep themselves relevent. If anyone can get the data then of what value is the department that has been hoarding it for all these years. The people who institute and maintain these hoarding policies disgust me and I can’t wait for the day when they are forced to give up their data and are then downsized. I don’t love Google, but if they are the instrument that can bring this about, I’m all for it.
It’s not an issue of FOIA but COPYRIGHT. FOIA does not trump Copyright unless the State or Local government specifcally writes it in. State and Local governemnts have the rights just like any business or individual to hold a copyright. It’s well within their rights to expect payment for use of their copyrighted material.
My local governments nearby charge a reasonable fee for a copy of their data but this does not confer the right to redistribute the data. They are giving you the data to use for your own use under the Fair Use clause of copyright and to abide by FOIA. If you want to make a profit off their data you need to enter into an agreement with them first. As a taxpayer I want them to recoup some of my tax dollars from corporations that are trying to profit off my taxs.
That’s crap; collections of fact are not subject to copyright unless there is a unique / non-obvious form of arrangement. Parcel data is a collection of fact!
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right to protect proprietary information in alternate ways (trade secret, etc), but copyright ain’t it.
My clients are in many geographic areas of the U.S. and it is maddening running into blockades to public data. It is great that the 500 pound Google Gorilla is flexing it’s proverbial muscles to push these issues forward and hopefully set some consistent precedence for allowing PUBLIC access to this PUBLIC data. The beautiful thing about Google’s move is that the Counties / Cities / Boroughs / Parishes / etc. that have been notoriously difficult to obtain data from will suddenly be deluged with “why isn’t our areas parcel data on Google Maps?” requests from the general public. Awesome.
I could care less if Google makes money off of this data. If they are adding some value to it, then why shouldn’t they be able to sell it or make money in part from it? If someone doesn’t want to use Google to access the data, then they can go to the same place that Google did to get the data and obtain it that way.
Two problems…we don’t know where they got the data. They are not releasing that info, as of yet.
Secondly, the public data in Google Earth or Maps isn’t accessablle. I can’t download a copy for myself, can I? Nope!!
Google’s action further changes the game for GIS in local and state government, particularly local at this time. As others have noted, in areas where parcel data does not exist or the local government ‘controls’ access (do not make money from my data!), others have stepped in to create alternative data. Sure, this is redundant, but we will have to wait and see which redundant effort survives. I predict that within 3 years, we will see significant movement of local government operations away from GIS data maintenance. Current data maintenance efforts will be outsourced, and local government will still have current and accurate data available to them for their required business processes (appraisal, emergency response, etc), without paying annual software license fees, some salary and benefits, and the other associated maintenance costs. Sure, this means that in many cases this local data will now come at a price to those wishing to use it. OTOH, data access and availability will be much more consistent (single license/purchase agreement rather than negotiate one for each city/county) and the data product will be consistent, documented, and current, and the data providers will be more accountable to their customers.
Those working in the local government GIS sphere, public and private, will need to change their thinking very quickly.
That will depend on the State… Most midwest States, parcel maintenance is a legislative or constitutional duty of an elected official who cannot outsource it. I think it’s Iowa that even requires all parcel maintenance to be done by deputized auditors or under the direct supervision of deputized auditors. There are some very good reasons for this, since plat maps are basically the final word on who owns a specific piece of property.
As a tax payer I want my local government to recoup my tax dollar from corporations that are trying to profit from my money! Why should corporations profit from tax payer money? All the arguments you make “product will be consistent, documented, and current, and the data providers will be more accountable to their customers” sound exactly like what my local governments are doing. The data I see on sites like Google just show why I try to use local data instead of the inconsistent, undocumented, outdated stuff on Google’s site. It only took them three years to change a couple of streets in our area even though I know of dozens of people that reported a problem to them. Try and on Google site just how old that data is. I know the four local governments around me all have web sites with current, live data that I can trust.
“…we will see significant movement of local government operations away from GIS data maintenance… Sure, this means that in many cases this local data will now come at a price to those wishing to use it…” Uh, isn’t this exactly what you were arguing against? Having to pay for data? So now you want to pay for data… as long as companies like Google get the money instead of the local government?
Those that want to profit from tax payer money need to change their way of thinking. The world isn’t free.
@Atanas: Ha, you Augean stables reference brought to mind this classic by Peter Gould, one of my heroes in geography at Penn State.
Anyway, out here in Colorado we have more than our share of data coordination headaches that belie our status as the most dynamic geospatial hub in the US (cough). Inertia, check, plus just some of that out-and-out recalcitrance Joe references above. I, for one, have urged my state officials to put away their carrots and start treating some of our less cooperative agencies solely with “sticks”–metaphorically speaking, of course.
So while the Google approach may not be the one we would’ve designed in committee, it does have the advantage of being difficult to ignore.
BT
p.s. And all of this makes me wonder about the status of that proposal by ESRI and Booz-Allen to create a national parcel map.
@Chris
I couldn’t disagree more. What we have here is a company who makes money by selling ads on maps. They outsource their “GIS” to India so the quality here is good enough for visualizing the data and for entertainment purposes.
What kind of liability will Google take on with their edits? If I’m running a backhoe, I want to know exactly where things are so I don’t run into a gas line or worse. You can NEVER outsource this stuff to a media company.
Using Google for you e911 apps? I hope I never get hurt because it can’t route to my house correctly.
The problem with all this is that Google can get county and city governments to give them data for free because they’ll give them free licenses of Google Earth and SketchUp.
OSM only has the greater good of mankind to sell. Obviously the City/County governments are going evil.
Licensing Your Map Content to Google http://www.google.com/support/mapcontentpartners/bin/topic.py?hl=en&topic=21599
The Google data is an improvement in my neighborhood. My street’s addressing is no longer reversed and my number geocodes directly in front of my house instead of a mile north.
That’s funny! When I Googled my former address it came up 7 road miles off. When I Googled my present address I found out my house was for sale. Not only do you have to worry about the “freshness of the bread” you have to worry about the recipe.
Wow what alot of comments on this subject. I have been in GIS and mapping for 30 years and data production and maintance, sustainablity is not free. This is another way for google to get short term ad profits. the imagery is old on the site, etc… Parcel data maintance is a weekly thing in counties. But I do believe this may push the national cadastral layer intiative forward. And I am sure that google is counting on that. Why pay when the feds will provide for free…………….they love to capitolize on the gov/tax payers dollars spent and get data for free.
Its a great picture, but thats all. I do feel sorry for County GIS depts that will now have to explain to the higher ups that google is not maintaining this data and that there jobs are critical in updating and maintianing the data. Now city and County officals will think that Google can just maintain this data. Free is not free and we must put a value on all the hard work that GIS professionals do on a daily basis. When we have fires floods, earthquakes or other major events we hope the data is accurate and up to date!!!!!!!!!!!! Data is always local to someone and accuracy and updated data saves lives and property.
Reply to this comment
I don’t know how it works in other states, but in the State of Florida, most counties give their GIS data away for free on the web.
In the counties around me (South Florida), you can download parcel shapefiles, and all other relevant data for free from their website. Just Google “X county GIS download” and you’ll usually come up with the appropriate download site.
A few of the counties do charge for that data, but I don’t believe that data is copyrighted. In other words, once I pay for a copy of that county data, I can distribute it to someone else. The only reason for someone to buy direct from the county is to ensure the latest update (which isn’t that important for Google’s purpose – even their aerials are years old now).
There is no reason the county parcel shapefile data shouldn’t be free. It is paid for by taxpayers.
Communities are allowed to set there own standards in this little democracy of ours. Elected officials can decide to enact statutes that restrict commercial use of the data to benefit their citizens through licensing. Conversely, they can decide to enact statutes to keep folks from using the data in harmful ways. This is the way that the freedom of information act works.
Why should Microsoft, map-quest, and google be allowed to make millions of dollars while some rural county in Eastern Oregon struggles to even have a staff? My guess is that you will not see these companies just giving away their data at any point. They understand the value of the data and that people are willing to pay for it in one way or another.
I’m curious about the reaction to google from governments. Will we se data opening up or held tighter to prevent this from happening?
The reaction to Google from local (county and municipal) governments will be a stone wall. The Google folks have been cruising in their own orbit, but will now clash with a different reality.
Justin, I’m all for government opening up its geodata and am trying to encourage that here, but I absolutely agree with you about use that is clearly for-profit. I’ve seen a growing trend of for-profit entities wanting my office to not just make information available to them, but to go a step farther and do their legwork for them – e.g. perform custom queries, create custom data sets, create custom maps, etc. My state’s Freedom of Information Act clearly states that we are not under any obligation to create any new or custom data sets or documents to fulfill a FOIA request. As such, we generally refuse as we do not have the time or resources to do so.
In addition, FOIA here also clearly states that its intent is for the general public to obtain information it needs to be engaged and informed and not for, as it puts it, “private gain or public loss”. I can’t speak for other states, but with GIS data already being at least somewhat exempt from FOIA here per some of the language in the statute, I can see pressure to lock local government geodata back in the vault.
Roger, your statements sound almost exactly like Virginia’s. I know here in Virginia FOIA does not usurp copyright. There’s even a clause that states that the state and other entities can charge a reasonable prorated charge to recover the costs of some GIS information. There is nothing in the state FOIA laws overriding copyright. So if the localities want to charge for some of their GIS data to recover costs the state allows it.
I agree with you 100%… for-profit entities should not expect a Free-Ride from local governments that have to spend a fortune to create GIS data. The public should have access to their data for their personal use under FOIA and the fair use clause of copyright, but that does not give the right for corporations to make money off my tax dollar. I want to be reimbursed for my taxes spent on GIS and used by someone else for profit.
“local government geodata” illustrates the general attitude held by many government workers. That is that public funded mapping information is owned by them and not the people. We refer to our schools, parks, roads as Public since they are funded and owned by the public. Imagine saying government schools, government parks, government roads. Those terms are ususally used in Communist or Socialist countires. Not here.
Christopher, you’re jumping to conclusions and reading far too much into things if you believe that the phrase “local government geodata” constitutes some sort of attitude of ownership of the data. I use it as a way of designating the source of the data, i.e. the type of agency that produces and maintains it – nothing more. It is not intended as any assertion of personal ownership.
Believe me, my life would be far easier if my agency just gave its data away. Having fewer data requests to answer, fewer invoices to send, and not having to worry about collecting fees would free up my time to better serve my agency and the public. However, as has already been pointed out, GIS staff in local government are more often than not the paid gatekeepers of the data and must ultimately follow their agency’s policies and the law. I’m using my influence to convince the policymakers I report to that freeing our geodata could be beneficial, but in the end it’s ultimately their call since they set policy. We are clearly moving in the direction of making geodata more freely available, but as is generally the case in government, change takes time.
slightly off-topic. It always bugs me when I see this…democracy.
We, the US, don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic, more direct, a representative republic.
Now, returning to your regularly scheduled ranting…
Google doesn’t do evil!!! There shouldn’t be any problems or up roar over what Google does. Remember they don’t do evil or bad things.
It’s in their motto.
I do love seeing the 1 ton gorilla finally, well might have finally, bitten off too much.
Maybe I misunderstood the issue here.
What is the opposition to Google overlaying parcel shapefiles on their maps?
In the counties where a fee is charged, I’m sure Google paid that fee to acquire that data and use it in their maps. In the counties who choose to make it available for free, it was free.
Zillow has had parcel shapefiles on their map for years now. Is there the same opposition to their service, as well?
I’m just trying to understand why some people seem upset about Google using these shapefiles on their maps. Maybe I’m missing the point.
I think that a big piece of this is just communication. In my area we just are not sure where the data came from. Google would do themselves a big service by explaining more. For all we know Google may have redrawn all the parcels themselves.
I agree re: missing the issue. Lots of comments about private use of public resources, copyright, legal issues that Google may have to deal with, etc. — which are well and good.
But I think it’s a bit of putting the cart before the horse. First, it seems that the parcel boundaries on Google Maps are just polygon outlines. As far as I can tell you can’t identify which parcel is which, you can’t click in a parcel to obtain detailed assessment information, you can’t display a color-coded map of land use patterns.
So if Google just wants to show the parcel lines, fine. If they incur legal hassles from that, fine. That’s their problem, and just adding the lines without any other context seems more confusing to the map reader than anything else. (See the RWW article at http://bit.ly/p1tih – they note that the new info on GM “adds a new layer of clutter to the maps”.)
As far as a private company obtaining public resources and then making money from it, I don’t see the problem — as long as everyone else has equal access to that data, and there are no fees that effectively guarantee that for-profit entities get the data while the public, nonprofits, universities, etc. are shut out.
But since we have no idea how Google got the data, it’s hard to criticize at this point.
I think the bigger issue is a concern that some have raised re: municipalities relying on The Google (or other big companies) to take over municipal services — in this case providing maps of parcels and related info. In effect, it’s privatization, and that raises a host of issues.
I just received an email from the Port Authority of NY/NJ touting the PA’s new website with “the ability to find the quickest, most convenient way to get to a destination on mass transit using multiple agency transit systems.” The new feature? Sure enough, Google Maps (http://www.panynj.gov/airports/jfk-get-transit-directions.html). It’s kind of amazing that an entity as big as the Port Authority ends up relying on Google to provide a service they should’ve been delivering all along.
But, in this case, I’m not surprised. The agency’s earlier “Trips 123″ site (http://trips123.com/) was panned the moment it was launched.
The other issue is ownership over edits, especially if it involves changes to public data. But if Google incorporates it in their maps, is it public anymore? Do they have agreements with municipalities to return improved data into the mix, a requirement that many GIS Data Sharing Collaboratives have implemented?
More stuff in here than should go in a comment, and the comments are already 70+, so I’ll try to pick this up in more depth at spatialityblog.com.
Thank you for this comment. I’m glad I searched through the page before posting. Excellent point. Why all the hubbub because Google did it? As you state Zillow has been doing it for years, as well as many other real estate / MLS sites.
I’m glad Google has the information on their site, now we don’t have to host it. And I can guarantee you the collective brainpower at Google will produce a product far better than I could produce, so good on ya Google!
If people are concerned about the accuracy and currency of the data, then I say work with Google to ensure the data are updated regularly. Your constituents will be better served by increased access to the data their tax money helped create. (And for those who might know me, yes this is a total reversal of my opinions from a few years ago. Call it enlightenment or stupidity. Reading “What Would Google Do?” by Jeff Jarvis was highly influential.)
We are already working on way to capitalize on this new source of data in my organization.
“Not copyrighted” and “free” are very different from “not licensed”. We’ve been handing out mostly free (cost of media) data with a creative commons non-commercial share-alike attribution license. That has stymied the resellers who do not want to have to attribute or share alike.
What I am liking here is the fact that here I can see these are not actually my counties parcels, but even further. I live in a duplex that is one parcel; but Google is actually resolving my address and the other home to two different locations and not just a street offset.
So I can agree with some folks, it will be interesting to see where there data is sourced and how it will be maintained going forward but for me, I am now going to be looking at using googles APIs to potentially geocode versus my own TANA data.
Yup – the road I live is on is not digitized correctly (they have my neighbor’s driveway instead), but my address geocodes right to the center of my parcel.
Nobody has mentioned it yet, but maybe Google silently bought out ParcelQuest / CD-Data?
The county I’m going to keep my eye on is Hamilton County, Ohio. If Google is able to get parcels for Hamilton, I’ll be expecting the sun to start rising in the west and birds flying backwards across the sky.
Parcel data for Hamilton is controlled by CAGIS (Cincinnati Area GIS). CAGIS is a consortium of land and infrastructure agencies and they charge exorbitant prices for access to their data- thousands of dollars. They obviously need the money, because running a ArcView 3/ArcInfo/ArcStorm shop is expensive. The kind of talent required doesn’t come cheap.
What’s funny is that The Google shows 3-d building shadows for the central part of Cincinnati, but with no parcel lines. The credit line cites Google and Sanborn.
And related to JF’s posts about slow-loading county maps, be sure to check out the CAGIS map. They won’t have to worry about any Flex/Silverlight tuning issues.
Well how about that. A MapObjects IMS map working in the wild!
I love the CAGIS Application Tools page — it brings back warm memories of my very first web publishing endeavors. The background! The “Under Construction” icon! I love it.
May I also point out that this page (and most of CAGIS, it appears) was published before The Google was conceived. So dealing with these GIS data custodians are some of the challenges Google is now facing.
It also has a blink tag!
Its CalAtlas now, and they will have parcels soon for CA.
I thought perhaps Boundary Solutions had finally made a big sale but Google has better coverage.
For the government types kvetching about for-profits trying to get data for free, keep in mind that these companies promote business and economic development in your communities. Yes, they turn a profit but who cares?
The next time a manufacturer doing a site selection chooses another town because the presentation had better GIS data, ask yourself if it was worth the $1000.00 (or $800,000; yes I’m talking to you Will County, IL) you wanted for expense recapture.
If you were to factor in the revenues generated by such activities, you would see the benefit of handing it out to all who asked.
The other side of the argument is that the government entity has a right to recoup the costs of the GIS system, data acquisition and other expenses. If that logic were applied to other departments, then I could call my county and ask them to plow my driveway for a fee, or have the road department pave my parking lot for a fee.
I’d like to see some local governments jump on this with some great mashup data. Who knows, maybe that will bring a big employer to your town.
This is probably what Google told the Authors Guild about Google Books before the DOJ stepped in. “People will read out of print books and try to find in print books by the same author! Imagine the profit you will make! None of the cool kids care about copyright, why should you?!”
This has turned into a discussion of “Who owns the stale bread?”, which is more or less a mute point. The real discussion ought to be “How to deliver the freshest bread possible to the largest number of users in the most efficient way?”.
Agreed. I think that will be through local government hastening outsourcing of their GIS data maintenance activities to professional services firms, and concentrating on their role of data user, not data maintainer. Elected officials and managers will see benefit in establishing level-of-service contracts with such firms to provide correct and timely data, meeting their mission-critical needs at a cost that will be less than what they currently pay for in-house maintenance. The agreement will enable them to have full use and distribution rights to the data (meeting citizen/FOIA requirements). The services firms will retain rights to aggregate and otherwise profit from the data, even with availability from the locals. They may even provide it to Google/MS/others. I and many others will find it easier and ultimately less costly to deal with a smaller number of data aggregators, with good, consistent data, than with a myriad of local data providers with variants of data policies and data structures. More and more local govs will use Google/MS/other as their data/application publishing platforms, rather than trying to roll their own with additional infrastructure and maintenance costs (think cloud-like). That is fresh bread to me.
Chris, I think you are still overlooking a critical issue; the legislative and constitutional mandates that local governments must be the data maintainers. When the state constitution says that the auditor or assessor or recorder must maintain the cadastral layer using appointed or deputized agents; that makes the outsourcing issue a bit tricky.
The single biggest issue I have with the Google vector data acquisition program, is that Google retains full control over what does and does not go on the map. They don’t want to see any street centerline edits, unless you enter them one at a time through their interface. They don’t want any address point updates. They want a one time set. Same with parcels, and parks, and new roads; all as one dataset. Then they pick and choose what parts of your data they want to use. And they will not remove any of it once they put it up, even if it is wrong, even if they only used part of your dataset. And if you supply them with an update, they make no guarantees that they will use all or even any of your update (see the street centerline issue).
I know a lot of people think, “Big deal, so a few parcels are out of line”; well, it was a big deal with the streets. We had to fight very hard to get Google to recognize that Interstate 64/Highway 40 was being closed for 2 years. It will be a similar issue when new subdivisions go in, or commercial parcels are merged/split for new developments. While those are major changes, Google will likely not acknowledge them because it would require pulling data from the existing posted dataset.
I agree with Atanas – we need to focus on how Google intends to maintain freshness.
I suspect they’ll follow the path of Google Transit and develop a parcel feed specification. This spec will quickly become a standard. I can’t picture them assembling a standards committee to draft this spec.
What I would like to know is, how is Google getting real time traffic data for city arterials? I just clicked on the traffic layer and though I expected to see the freeways light up, not the inner city arterials are displaying traffic. How is that possible? The city itself doesn’t even have this kind of data or sensor network to support it.
See http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/08/google-maps-mobile-users-send-traffic.html
It is done with cell phones and data from the masses. If you use Google Maps on your cell device and have the My Location turned on then you are helping collect traffic condition data. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/bright-side-of-sitting-in-traffic.html
I have not been able to figure out how to get the parcel data to display. Do you need some kinda premium account/license or something to that affect?
This is a smart play by Google, not just for public access though. One of the main reasons that Google Maps aren’t used a lot in municipal contexts is data quality and currency. If Google starts pulling in local government data and doing incremental area-based tile updates, their potential to sell $10,000/year enterprises into municipalities increases 1000-fold.
Looks like they partnered with a Parcel Map Provider. Fidelity comes to mind first.
http://apb.directionsmag.com/archives/6592-Google-Confirms-Partnership-for-Parcel-Data.html
I’m a GIS analyst for a city in California. We’ve added ~20,000 houses in the 10 years so I have a lot of metrics to go on here… The aerials on Google are so old they are good for historical research. In panning around city the “new” Google parcels a few things have jumped out at me. The parcels here clearly did not come from any of the local gov’ts. First American would make sense as a source. There are tracts missing that have had houses on them for 3+ years. The road file (TeleAtlas?) they are using is 4ish years out of date. And finally… it looks to me like they conflated their aerials to whatever road file they are using. The parcels don’t match the roads or the aerials in places by dozens of feet.
Here is the new scenario at the local government GIS office:
“Hi, I’m from Google and I’d like all of your data. Before you have a conniption fit, I’d like to mention that Santa Clara County California just wrote a $500,000 check to cover the legal expenses for a failed attempt to block a FOIA request. You can Google a copy of the opinion if you’d like. Let’s go chat with your corporate counsel and see if they’d like to play Google roulette with some taxpayer dollars.”
Check and mate.
A significant suit which now establishes that county mapping data can not be copyrighted. At least in California. Not sure if other states would have to rely on this case law.
Califonia is a strange beast, you can’t copyright GIS data. But the state can copyright laws; ie. recope money for all the books printed. Weird!
Santa Clara was a sunshine law request, not a FOIA request. Huge difference there is a sunshine law request is different from state to state, and must be made by a state (and sometimes even county) resident. And then there is the follow up: Hello Mr. Google Employee St Louis County resident, here is your dataset. And the terms of the non-commercial, attribution required, share-alike, data concurrency for reuse license agreement that our state law allows us to apply to this dataset. We will be contacting -you- about this license if this dataset shows up on Google with your unique easter eggs intact.
I say tomato you say Sunshine.
This is the kind of decision that causes state laws to change. As I type this, you can be sure that there are companies and lawyers making plans to bust that type of license. It’s only a matter of time.
As I said in another post, by letting go of these fauxwnership issues, local governments will increase economic development.
“How is the site selection coming along?”
“St. Louis County had too many restrictions in their license so we went with the second choice.”
You missed a key point there though… our data is free. We provide it free. We even provide means to get updated data. What we don’t like is people commercially selling 10 and 15 year old data.
“How’s that site selection going?” ‘We picked out two sites on Google, but when we went to research them we found out one was swept away in the 1993 floods and the other has 15 story office building on it now.’
I didn’t miss the point but I didn’t communicate clearly.
Your license doesn’t allow commercial use and therefore cannot be used by any company/aggregator providing data for site selection or any other use. If no other data is available for your area, site selection (or whatever) cannot happen.
People doing that type of analysis do not want to gather data from multiple sources and normalize, integrate, etc. They prefer getting it from one source, doing the analysis and making the decision. Yes, they’ll pay for that and someone will make a buck.
Believe it or not, ‘there be more than dragons’ beyond the edge of your map. There are thousands of other data sets that need to be integrated.
If any point got missed, I think it is a desire to insure that no one can make a profit from “your” data. That is shortsighted.
By providing the data without restriction, you give your community the best chance at having companies use it for growth.
Using the data to conduct a site selection is not commercial use. The non-commercial part only applies to copying, distributing, display, and performance. Not to derivative products (but it has to legitimately be a derivative product). Only the share alike clause applies to derivative products. It has nothing to do with who profits, and everything to do with the concurrency of the data. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ (We are considering http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) Notice “Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.” Providing stale years old data (which most data from these aggregators is at least 9 years old) will inhibit rather than encourage growth.
I work for a city that will welcome this from Google. I am sure that the county will complain, but I look at the data as being public. There is of-course some data associated with the parcels that should never be published, i.e. owner contact info, but things like the boundary and address data is fine.
If Google calls me up, I would gladly give them all of the data I could. I see this a helping the public because it gives them more resources to access for themselves. Plus it would reduce some of the time I have to use on assisting citizens in the office.
It’s all good.
Google isnt doing this as a public service though. Its simply adding value to an existing service with the aim to attract more people to its site thus raising ad revenue by associated click throughs in location based advertising.
How would you compensate your citizens? What are they getting for their tax property dollar out of this deal?
“What are they getting for their tax property dollar out of this deal?”
First of all, the GIS data wasn’t made to help Google – it was made to assist the county in managing property. So, the GIS data acquisition is a sunk cost. It didn’t cost the taxpayers any more money to let Google use this data. Many counties make this data available for free, anyways (as they should).
Second, the benefit to taxpayers is just as Carey said: “it gives them more resources to access for themselves”. Less people calling the county offices and using their resources means more time and money saved on the part of the county in personnel and other expenses, as well as getting access to a service that is helpful to them.
Besides, the public benefits more from Google having easy or free access to this data than if they don’t. In my county, all a GIS data licensing fee would do is allow our wealthy firefighters to retire even earlier. There is never a benefit to taxpayers when a local government finds an additional revenue source. The politicians and unions will put that money right in their pockets.
I love what Google and Microsoft have done to open up all this information to the public. I hope they do profit from it. If providing free access to tons of geographic information isn’t profitable, they will stop doing it.
@Carey
Not sure what you mean by “There is of-course some data associated with the parcels that should never be published, i.e. owner contact info”
Public data is public data.
While some agencies allow requests to restrict the names and addresses of judges, LEOs, stalking victims, etc., even those written requests could be subject to a FOIA demand.
If you want some kind of anonymity, you can always buy property in a trust or similar vehicle.
I see from a few people comments.
Me, the public, should use a private company to view(not access, since it can’t be downloaded from Google Earth or Maps) public data?
I don’t get that logic. Let alone, have a private company as a middle man. They could pull the plug or even change the terms, manner in which the public data could be viewed.
@KoS
You mean a third party that outsources the work to India at the lowest bidder.
Seriously though (well I was serious about the above statement), what Google wants out of the data is totally different than what we as citizens would want out of it. I can’t imagine any scenario where the two goals (Google’s and Government) align.
I think I know what your hinting at. But no.
I don’t like the idea where I’m suppose to go through a private company to view public data. And then fed BS, look the public has access to it now. Which I don’t. Or it could be my definition or view on accessing (not viewing) data is different than others.
I go away on vacation and this drops? Figures….
Let us not lose sight of why Google did this. Not because they wanted to “free the data” but to ensure they make more money selling ads. As lefty said above, that shouldn’t align with any government needs.
If Google says the reason is different, they are not being truthful.
Let’s just face it. The problem that many people have is that Google is getting preferential treatment from PUBLIC data providers whereas the PUBLIC themselves (i.e the people that actually paid for this data) is having to jump through huge hoops (financial and legal) to get that same data!
Public organizations are choosing to contribute data to a COMPANY like Google, instead of a not-for-profit organizations like the OpenStreetMap project.
If the flow of the data would go like this:
Public entity –> [Std repository] (OSM or whatever else) –> Google
then there would be no problem. If you want the public data, you could go to the [Std repository] and do whatever you want (like profit from it) just like Google does. Totally legit and fair IMHO. Most of us would not care since EVERYONE would have access to the “public” data.
Currently, I can go and contribute data to OSM, and anyone can benefit from it since everyone can download the change. Great!
If I fix data from Google Maps, well, guess what? Only Google benefits from it. And I agree that it is my choice – I gave them the change instead of OSM. I suck for that.
I can go to http://planet.openstreetmap.org and download their entire dataset free of charge.
Where is my http://planet.google.com for the public portion they have gathered?
Sure, you can argue that bandwidth costs money. If their intention is “don’t be evil” and profit (like any other company), I am definitely OK with that. However, at the very least, provide a link to where the public data can be downloaded from.
Bingo!
James- this has got to be the longest set of blog comments in the geospatial world. I have fatigue from just reading half of them. And Now I add to the length. Out of amusement from the range of opinions on this Google is a saint or a fool, either way it’s a welcome addition coming from a country that has state level parcel databases.. to the mm.
Oh piffle.
Google has done more to break our precious little industry out of it’s navel-gazing self-reverence in the last 5 years than all of the ‘geographic approach’ and ‘engineered enterprise’ marketing have accomplished in the previous 30.
This is a phenomenal, wonderful leap forward for our dorkish corner of the IT landscape and we’re [generally] whining because “it’s not good enough” or “not really free”…
Oh puhleeze people – this is huuge. Get over it, leverage it, and go with it.
[Imagine where GIS would be if Google didn't buy Keyhole five years ago. Still toiling away in the engineering and planning departments, scrabbling for the budget leftovers and trying to convince people that putting things on a map was a good idea...that's where.]
amen brother -
“[Imagine where GIS would be if Google didn't buy Keyhole five years ago. Still toiling away in the engineering and planning departments, scrabbling for the budget leftovers and trying to convince people that putting things on a map was a good idea...that's where.]“
GIS is still toiling away like that in most places outside the West Coast. We can give credit to Google, but I think more credit sits with UC Santa Barbara, UC Berkeley, Washington (and the Space Cadets), Oregon, and Oregon State. Let’s face it, Google has yet to deliver on most of the hype that spun around when they bought Keyhole. How much has the software and data inside Google Earth really improved inside the United States over the last 5 years compared to Keyhole’s first 3 years of existence? http://blog.focusedonlight.com/archive/2005/may/googlekeyhole http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2004/11/why_google_boug.html
@ Brett
I can’t recall the last time I opened Google Earth on purpose.
Ah, yes. Well, we are part of the circle of trust, aren’t we.
The millions and millions of folks around the world who DO open Google Earth every day, and share KML files to put their dots on the map, are plenty satisfied with the ‘good enough’ available in GE.
Since we know better, it’s our job to capture that excitement and convert it into support for ‘the best’ data we know is achievable.
Isn’t that more a reflection of the nature of your work, james? I have to deliver some sort of dataset in the municipality I work in on a daily basis and GE is a useful tool I go to on a weekly basis, either to check out something I can’t get in-house or to deliver a dataset in a format that someone can use/view quickly without have to download an ESRI product.
Who here had not benefited in some way from using Navteq or Tele Atlas data either directly through an organization license or relying on their data in a vehicle nav system or online map? Both companies built those maps almost entirely from data produced by local, state and federal agencies. How many lives have been saved because this information is utilized by emergency operations, law enforcement and the general public? How many lives have been lost because data is incomplete or inaccurate because the local agency refused to look past their “license” restrictions or price restrictions and would not provide the information?
This information doesn’t do much for the public good if it is locked up with the bureaucrats and kept away from the evil (job creating, tax and revenue producing) businesses. Someone said earlier, so what if a company makes money off this? They produce jobs, right? This generates taxes to keep the bureaucrats employed, right? How come no one is screaming about trucking companies making money from using public roadways, or tour companies operating within National or State Parks, or those immoral food companies that provide lunches to the kids in public schools?
If you follow the blogs the public loves the additional information on Google. Perhaps the power mongers will actually get a clue and realize the public wants their information in an easy to consume format. The public has already begun asking why data is missing from their area. Probably because their elected officials choose to keep this public information away from them.
Is it hyperbole to suggest that there is similarity between Gutenberg and Google? Namely, both have brought information which was held only by the power elite (Church in the Dark Ages, and Local Government today) and brought it to the public through an easy to consume medium? History has shown that the flow of information and ideas is positive and is not something to be feared. Thank you Google for continuing to push us forward.
@Emile Zola
Do they open it because they have a license to do so or because it changes their workflows?
GE is on the desks because of the license, not because it is life changing. If Google hadn’t bought Keyhole, do you think GE would be there? Not any more than GeoPDF is. cough
Ah. I’ll posit the millions and millions of users are NOT professionals with a license. Also, for those folks who dont have a license at work, and care about the issue, they use it at home.
Ever wonder how many Federals use Google Earth to visualize KMLs without ‘paying for it’ in a license…lots and lots and lots, it turns out.
WRT the point about GE being there without Google’s largesse, that’s exactly my point. There’s only one other company in the world that’s spending nearly the same amount of money on maps as Google. For that matter, there’s no other entity anywhere in the world that’s spending as much as either Google or MSFT on publicly available maps. How much did USGS get in the Stimulus for maps? $14 million.
My point is most folks can use GE without a license, and do. And since between GE and Bing we’re probably looking at a half-billion in annual investment in content generation, I think the terms are being dictated, and we should hang on for the ride.
TA likes to be the name behind the map, not necessarily the name on the map. Draw your own conclusions. Does the routing still work well? Then that is an indicator, since that would indicate a good routing data set and you have only a couple of options there. I’m not reading too much into the presence or absence of a tag line.
Nothing earth shattering here but I live in a very new subdivision, which has never been found on any map service until Google parcels showed up. Although the street doesn’t display, today the street was found and correctly geo-coded to my subdivision. Mapquest also now found it. Coincidental perhaps. To see, search for Knotty Pine Lane Chardon Ohio. I’ll leave the dialectic hyperbole to others more sane than I.
Google is doing this because they can and know how. I could care less how they got the data or if they make money from it. I’m sure if some of you know how or have the resources to do it, you’ll do the same.
I don’t really see the big deal! It’s public data that is not even all accurate or current, for the most part. I like what Google is doing. It’s all good to me!
I’m in the business of creating data and making it work for my agency’s staff to further the mission our legislature set out for us. Public data distribution is an important and necessary but ancillary and potentially expensive part of that picture.
We have been “giving away” all of our GIS data to the public (who paid for it), for years.
Consultants make money off of “our” public data every day of the week. Last time I checked, they paid taxes too. All of this has been fantastic for advancing public and private use of GIS in my state.
Guys like me have 3 “clients”: 1) In house GIS users with specific agency responsibility. 2) Public and private organizations with GIS capability. Many of these we partner with on various projects. 3) Joe with a web browser and a question.
Now, Google offers me a (free?) platform to make my most excellent data available in a form that is accessible to the average Joe, rather than just GIS professionals and a few hobbyists… cool. Guess what, my boss is all over it. Cross #3 off my list.
The folks from openThisAndThat can download my data any day of the week.
We’ll be looking at this very seriously.
How is this any different than a month ago?
All that has changed is Google’s maps are less accurate (allegedly) than before and have some parcels on them. Google Maps isn’t anymore GIS than it was all the way back in September, 2009….
You are misunderstanding how the system works. Google is not offering you a free platform to make your data available. Google is offering you the chance to give them your data; then they will decide which, if any, of your data to publish. Those who have been down this road already, know that Google will not publish any data they already have, even if what they have does not in any way match what you have. And you will not be informed when or if they will use your data. Does that cross #3 off your list?
Three points:
1
When has Google ever cared about copyright? Have you not seen the huge law suit between the American Publishers Association and Google…They scanned whole complete college libraries (Michigan State I think)and posted the works with no concern over copyright. We’re Google, so sue us! Even with a class action law suit they will still end up with the data they want…don’t ask for permission ask for forgiveness.
2
You all are acting like you own the parcel data…”I didn’t approve this” was a comment I saw here. Last time I checked parcel data could be published from free courthouse records for every county in the US. Heck they hired people to drive every road in the US for StreetView why wouldn’t they hire a few researchers in each state and compile there own parcel layer? Plus there are plenty of parcel resellers out there. First American has 1800 counties worth of parcel data right now and adding more every quarter.
3
It’s just a reference…no one is going to be going to court over a boundary dispute with a google map print out.
Wow what alot of comments on this subject. I have been in GIS and mapping for 30 years and data production and maintance, sustainablity is not free. This is another way for google to get short term ad profits. the imagery is old on the site, etc… Parcel data maintance is a weekly thing in counties. But I do believe this may push the national cadastral layer intiative forward. And I am sure that google is counting on that. Why pay when the feds will provide for free…………….they love to capitolize on the gov/tax payers dollars spent and get data for free.
I’ve left a few comments up above, but I think I have failed to bring across my main point. It’s not about profit; it’s not about accuracy; and it’s not about concurrency. It’s about Google being the gatekeeper. Anyone who thinks this is a new avenue to publish their data is not paying attention. Google is not publishing your data; Google is publishing their data. If part of your data happens to fill a hole in their data, they may or may not use your data to fill that hole. They are not fixing, correcting, refreshing or updating their data with your data. The terms of the vector program make that clear. Google is becoming the gatekeeper of correctness; this allows them to dictate what data is used by the public and their clients.
I agree, they want to be the first and out front of all data published on the web. But credit needs to be given to those that work everyday in updating and maintaining data so critical to our local areas. Every event is local to someone and we hope that our city, county and state has the most up to date information when we need it.
The guys over at EarthPlat.com seem to be already working on this for the state of Florida. Crazy application, meaning, really nice. It’s free for so many uses, but man, talk about parcel, plot data…
EarthPlat is the website, free too, check it out… My help some people out, for Florida that is…
Feds enjoy using GoogleEarth because it is easy. Part of the problem for us GIS folks is that displaying points is great, but soon after the requests come in for more and more GIS functionality. I haven’t seen any increased improvements on that end. It has, I think, kicked ESRI in the pants enough that they’re got better web offerings than they might have.
In terms of Parcels themselves, the agency I work for uses parcels whenever they can, purchasing as necessary, but for where we are in the midwest, it seems like the majority of small communities don’t have parcel data in Google, let alone a plan for keeping anything current. If Google helps these smaller cities modernize their parcels, then we can potentially use them for our own purposes. We would still contract with the county/city since we’re after data that google does not (and probably will not) provide.
Crowdsourcing has its place, but I still wonder at accuracy, precision, and updates.
At least one county in Michigan has their parcel level data online and the GIS Director wasn’t aware of it or how it found its way to Google. Perhaps it originated from one of the national parcel providers? Perhaps it was provided to Google by an engineering firm with an older vintage shapefile sitting around? Bottom line, if Google decides to publish parcel data, it would be highly beneficial for Google to source the data explicitly in much the same manner as with their imagery.
Despite all the arguments of what people “think” versus “do” with parcel level data, I absolutely guarantee that if our parcels were on Google Maps they would consider them “authoritative” since they’re “produced” by Google. It’s obvious they would have to survey for any boundary dispute, but that would only be after they descend upon our building to wastefully argue the accuracy of a boundary line. Local governments that are closest to the data, should be the ones distributing the data. At least in that fashion we can logically discuss boundary issues with current data and institutional knowledge of the local situation.
As a member of the general public who considers Google Earth and Google Maps the closest I’ve ever come to using GIS software, I stumbled on this blog post and read all the comments up to this point. I think this new data in Google is great. I had no idea that maybe I could go submit a FOIA request to my local government office to get parcel data. Or even go down to their office to beg them to show me their maps if I can manage to go when they’re open. But I wouldn’t even know where the local gov’t office is without googling for their address and using google maps to give me directions.
Are some of you on here really telling me that I am better off with local gov’ts keeping this data locked in basement vaults and forcing me to drive around to get the most basic question or curiosity answered, rather than spending 10 seconds looking it up on google from anywhere in the world?
If I have a legal dispute, the lawyers can fight about which map in the government vault is the most accurate or the freshest or has the right legal mumbo jumbo. For real life, I’ll use google maps for free and benefit from google and the masses adding data that makes my life better, such as where the nearest McDonald’s is.
Bottom line: Google maps keeps finding ways to improve my life for free, and on top of that it’s easy to use. My local government’s maps, even if they are more accurate or up-to-date, are day-to-day as irrelevant to me as ever.
Part of the issue is addressing your curiosity using data that is 5 years old and may or may not have changed or been updated. Part of this thread is simply annoyed that there isn’t source data with it.
Does anyone have any idea how many counties/cities/etc that Google has parcels for? The majority of the areas I’ve looked at (In the Midwest) do not have parcel information.
Bottom Line: Wikipedia is a great tool that answers my curiosity, but they went through a bit of tough times over their crowd-sourced data, but I would not write my college papers citing Wikipedia authoritatively.
What questions would you be answering though? Most questions people want answered with parcel lot lines require knowing where the lines are from and how old they are.
Google is no different from Tele Atlas or Navteq in that they all are for-profit corporations interested at maximizing shareholder value.
Their initial release of US Map Data is a major step by them. This data will get more refined through crowdsourcing and they will add additional and updated attributes. Their own database which likely cost them $1B+ to develop (remember Tele Atlas was sold for $4B+ two years ago and Navteq for $7B+ two years ago)and will likely cost them several hundred million dollars annually to maintain; will enable them to leverage their business into all sorts of markets including TBT, LBS, wireless, etc. through their various relationships and operating systems
Google cracked the code relative to profiting from an advertising funded business model. Their meteoric rise has shown us that advertisers are willing to foot the bill and that we the public are willing to accept user experiences that include the display of static and dynamic ads.
The big questions are what Tele Atlas and Navteq are going to do given this threat. Other big losers are Microsoft and Apple.
Google in many regards is the new evil empire. That cute little clean website is a trojan horse. Like Microsoft in the 80s and 90s, Google is an example of one of the best executed game changing business plans. They will step over, around and on lots of folks and companies along the way. Many would argue that it is survival of the fittest – which I think it is.
It is also a great example of US capitalism. Frankly I am pleased tht Google is a US grown company. We can’t afford to make tooth brushes in the US anymore but at least we remain on the cutting edge of tech and business innovation.
thanks for reading my rant.
My counties parcels are shown on Google also. I also understand that MapQuest is showing parcels now as well although they don’t have our parcel lines (yet). After doing some checking, it appears that the parcel lines are as old as 2006. Google did not ask us for the data, and I do not know where they got it from. That is what I would like to know, and I wonder why they don’t document the source and date somewhere. If they feel good enough about it to put it out there they should feel good enought to document where they got it or at least give you the ability to find that info somewhere. I already get asked by people to fix their address because they think what is on Google or Mapquest is what the 911 will use even though it is correct in our system. They assume the information came from us. I am sure I will get calls about parcel lines being wrong now also…
To those that think that the world should be free… the issue isn’t about the local government keeping their data locked up… the issue is Google profiting from Taxpayer dollars. In this day and age when everyone whines about some poor soul who’s lost his house and should get a handout from the government, or about cutting taxes because we are paying too much … then why is there an anyone arguing that Google should be getting something for FREE from the government? Google can pay my local governments for the data … I don’t want my tax dollar going to support profits at Google.
It costs my local governments a small fortune to create and maintain their GIS operations. I want some of that tax dollar recovered if possible so my tax bill will be lower and Google can do its part to pay for what it’s using. When Google and companies like ESRI offer up their software for free to local governments perhaps then the locals can offer up their data for free in kind. And yes you do have to pay Google for some of their services so why shouldn’t the local govs charge? Mom never said life was free…
Right on TC! Google had a great opportunity to help stimulate local government economies by acquiring the data and subsequent updates bu working with them not against them…
Carl, I do hope you’re being sarcastic about stimulating local government economies. Giving the government money usually stimulates wastful spending and not much more.
Why are so many on this blog hostile to business? I’m in the business of developing property which makes me a businessman. Before I can complete a simple lot split, I have to pay the local government close to $75,000 in fees for the privelege of subdividing. Fees for roads, parks, libraries, schools, etc. Is that fair? Like my Mom always said..”Life isn’t fair.” Bottom line is, business and government use each other and need each other for survival. Government is not out anything if Google, Mapquest, Microsoft or who the hell ever puts some lines on a map to drive advertising.
The government may not be “out anything” but the tax payer is… I want my tax dollar recouped from Google or any other entiy that wants a Free Ride off my tax dollar. You’re right mom said life wasn’t fair… so business can pay for the data just like the local governments had to.
Oh, and those “fees” you pay are very fair. I just wish my local governments would charge more. I’m fed up with developer’s that put in new developments without enough roads, or parks, or libraries and then the local government (my tax dollar) has to pay to upgrade or fix what the developer put in. Anything that recoups my tax dollar from business looking for a free ride is great in my book.
Tele Atlas or Navteq had to pay to create their data… they don’t give it away for free… so why should a local government?
So, an interesting issue I saw brought up on another blog… Google is collecting APN. If APN gets exposed in the API, how long before one of the appraisal protest sites comes up with an automated CAMA protester application? Use the APNs in Google Maps to mass harvest appraisal data and search for parcels with high appraisals. File the protests en mass; for any that are accepted, fire off a letter to the parcel asking for a percentage fee to follow through with the protest. (Or for those jurisdictions where the homeowner must file, send them the letter first but have the protest prepared.)
This informaiton is already readily available via county sites through map or web interfaces or even direct download of the tax rolls. Or anyone can obtain the rolls from the Auditor, Assessor etc. I get letters every year (in a down market) from these companies. Funny thing is that only one time did the local Assessor send me a change in valuation notice when my property value decreased.
This is an excellent example of how public information is utilized by the commercial market to inform property owners that they are being overcharged on their property tax bills. Thanks for bringing it up Brett.
Yeah, a lot of places do this already using the tax rolls directly. Google Maps would just allow for easier integration – which makes the accuracy of the data available a bit more important.
Glad to see Google launch their first attempt at parcel mapping. This should open people’s eyes to the direction GIS is heading. The other national parcel mapping site I use http://reportallusa.com has pluses and minuses compared to Google Maps. It has a higher learning curve than GM, but is really functional. How long till Bing dives in?
Google is not doing parcel mapping. They are getting in some cases very old and outdated data from undisclosed sources and putting it out there. There is no way they are collecting all of the recorded documents needed to map these parcels themselves, and though they might be getting some new data from a handful of Assessor’s offices or counties who have made agreements with them, I would be willing to bet that most of this data, like my own counties data on Google, is several years old. This type of data changes constantly and unless Google can get those updates on a regular basis the data is basically worthless.
Its a legal boundary issue, as long as folks use as a reference its ok but if used in any project this could be a lawsuit pending. Surveyors have licensing for a reason and many states have very strict laws on legal boundaries. This is where this could become a lawsuit nightmare for many that use this data for any real project work. Its great for an approximate but never use this for anything but that.
As a commercial user of parcel data, I can do whatever I want with it. That is exactly why I bought it. I’m local and have no need to distribute it to anyone else outside my organization. It’s so valuable to our line of business that it would be hard to come up with a better use except to overlay some of our data on top. What’s Google’s real line of business? Advertisement.
This whole conversation is really funny because I just looked at the parcel data in Tucson for the first time. Just like in my organization, parcels have little intrinsic value unless you put other map services on top of them. The real estate polyps really make sense with parcels. I think they want to sell ads for real estate. Shopping by geography is a great use. Looks like it also would help with the geocoding problem since those polyps are at the centroid of the polygon.
I’d like to think of an unholy union between Craigslist and google maps as something I would really use to shop for goods.
As a map snob I think google maps is really simple. However, it’s the overlay of services on the basemap that makes it interesting. That’s where Google has a chance. If all I did was make basemaps, I’d be bummed too.
I work for a local government here in the Northern California region, and collaborate closely with the GIS department…yep, they just recently started shoveling their ESRI data up to google…which I think is way cool. But my question is whether the Google Maps API lets us leverage the underlying parcel boundary lines?…such as for computing boundary area, or even retrieving the parcel number…they (google) have the underlying data as that’s how the gray-parcel-lines get drawn…but I wonder if Google is going to allow us to get at it (via code such javascript, flex, etc)?…hmmm…more digging.
Oh yeah, here’s a example link of an .NET based solution that leverages the same ESRI data that is being given to Google:
http://www.assessor.saccounty.net/AssessorsParcelViewerApplication/default.htm
Hmmm…the above public web site is supported by tax dollars…hmmm…I wonder how much longer it will be before Google maps could simply be used (rather than custom .NET and ESRI code), and for the local parcel data, such as land use codes, parcel numbers, etc, just link to Google Maps?…then all the thousands of local government jurisdictions that are each independently coding map based web sites could transition to higher value work…
4est
17 Trackbacks
[...] Different data on Google Maps – James Fee points out that Google Maps now has parcel linework showing. Additionally, it seems Google Maps is no longer using TeleAtlas for their street data and has a Base Map Partner Program. Some detail is available in the LatLong post on it as well as information on Google’s “Report a problem” link. [...]
[...] update Lots of comments on a post by James Fee [...]
[...] James Fee found parcel layers on his map, but in Connecticut we are not so lucky. I am not sure if Google is slowly adding a parcel layer when they get the information, but again this is something to look forward to! [...]
[...] update Lots of comments on a post by James Fee [...]
[...] base street maps in the U.S. Instead, apparently Google now owns their own base street maps, and is including parcel maps for many counties across the [...]
[...] they’ve been using. The announcement has caused a flurry of discussion of course. James raises questions about various aspects of the data (especially parcels). Steve speculates that the same thing will [...]
[...] mentioned on the Google Geo Blog yesterday, as well as by James Fee in his blog, Google's spatial offerings (Google Maps and soon Google Earth I assume) will [...]
[...] providers have supplied parcel data. The addition of parcel data to Google Maps has initiated a very interesting post and conversation regarding the source(s), accuracy, and legality of this [...]
[...] update Lots of comments on a post by James Fee [...]
[...] Lots of comments on a post by James Fee Google didn’t pay shit for this crap. They roll into city/county with “free” google earth [...]
[...] in the US with their own data. Both James and Peter have written about this in their own blog posts here (over 130 comments!) and here respectively. Enjoy. Categories: podcasts Tags: Comments [...]
[...] update Lots of comments on a post by James Fee [...]
[...] See also James Fee’s GIS Blog for additional commentary: http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2009/10/07/google-maps-now-uses-their-own-map-data/ [...]
[...] geo-world was a-twitter last week with the fact that Google had dropped TeleAtlas as their map supplier in the US (here too), and that they have included parcel-level data and geo-coding in their API release. The [...]
[...] Google Maps Now Uses Their Own Map Data – James Fee Blog (161 comments and counting) [...]
[...] professional like I am, you probably have mixed feelings about Google claiming they have their “own” data. Now, I don’t blame Google for ditching TeleAtlas. At least in my area of interest, [...]
[...] the same time that Google was getting a lot of attention and flack for pushing parcel linework into their Google Maps application, First American Spatial Solutions [...]