Hi All, Under the old ToS, it seemed as though there was consensus that following structure was permissible. I'd like to hear what people have to say given the revised ToS.
A passworded google map, with a guest//guest password publicly listed and accessible (perhaps even the defaults on the login screen). Logging in with the guest/guest account would access a google map with a fair amount of significant data added to the map (overlays of initially 90000 eventually 200000 historic structures/locations as well as connected WMS reference layers). Logging in with a imAnArchaeologist//andCanSeeSensitiveSiteLocations would access the same map, but with additional data (~12000 archaeological sites). In other words, the map is publically accessible under a freely given (probably publicly listed on the login page), guest account. However, logging in with different accounts (no charge, but legally that data cannot be made publicly accessible) would show different or additional data, or customized task specific features not useful to the general public. Is this currently permitted under the ToS? I believe it still is, but want to gauge reaction consensus before spending the time building it rather than installing geoserver, and going that route. Why wouldn't it be? The ToS are vague 9.1 *Free, Public Accessibility to Your Maps API Implementation*. Your Maps API Implementation must be generally accessible to users without charge. You may require users to log in to your Maps API Implementation if you do not require users to pay a fee. Unless you have entered into a separate written agreement with Google or obtained Google's written permission<http://www.google.com/enterprise/maps/>, your Maps API Implementation must not: (a) require a fee-based subscription or other fee-based restricted access; or (b) operate only behind a firewall or only on an internal network (except during the development and testing phase). 9.1 requires the implementation to be generally accessible without charge. While the described site is generally accessible, certain overlays are not. However, the language specifically says "generally", rather than "entirely", "completely" or even just "accessible". The FAQ is also vague. "If consumers can easily sign up for a password without charge or if the purpose of the password protected map is to enhance the publicly available map (i.e. administration), then your site is likely within the Terms of Service" The general public is given access to a password with significant content (the majority of the content, in fact). However, the password protected map does not enhance the public map, and contains data which is not accessible via that general public password. I believe this would constitute a map that is 'generally available', where the public 'can easily sign up for a password'. Thoughts? Am I missing something? Thanks a lot, Josh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
