Hey Andreas,
I want to clarify that I think the work you did on the GoogleNG layer
was great. The words I used in the email below and on the ticket are
really just an indirect rephrasing of the message from the Google Maps
Product Manager - and I don't want it to come across as message direct
from me.
From our perspective (using OpenLayers), we want nothing but tiles. It
is extra overhead to pull in a complete mapping API. Since we can't
completely control the user interaction by wrapping another mapping API,
we end up with some awkward interactions. Your use of the (well
documented) getTile method was an excellent way to get what we want.
And I know you made every effort to honor the terms of service, with
particular focus on displaying their copyright information. It all felt
like a great solution.
From Google's perspective (I'm imagining here), they want complete
control over the mapping interface. I can imagine that at some point
they'll want to drop clickable business icons in there for advertisers -
or something similar. They also work hard to provide a very slick user
experience with animation and the like. I'm sure that just as much as
we don't like seeing our overlays looking sloppy with their tiles, they
don't like seeing their tiles look sloppy with our map interaction.
I don't want to say that the two are completely incompatible, but I'm
sure others would agree that OpenLayers is better suited for use with
providers that allow direct access to tiles. Using OpenLayers with Bing
tiles, OSM tiles from MapQuest or openstreetmap.org, and other similar
providers is a better match in my opinion.
We've gotten some generous support from a few sponsors recently (see
http://openlayers.org/sponsorship/ and more details in upcoming weeks).
My hope is that we can dedicate some funds to improving (among other
things) our own user interaction, including nicer animation on zooming
and panning. This is somewhat unrelated, but my point is that I hope we
can continue improving what OpenLayers does best and ideally not invest
too much in trying to integrate with a black box over which we have
little control.
That said, it's an obvious win if OpenLayers can work with Google Maps
in a way that satisfies all parties.
Tim
On 8/31/11 1:01 AM, Andreas Hocevar wrote:
I'm terribly sorry for the trouble the GoogleNG layer has caused in
the end. I wrote it with the goal in mind to integrate Google Maps
better into OpenLayers, without violating the terms of use. The way I
did it I was sure it would comply with the terms, because I only used
a documented API method to retrieve tiles. The tiles are managed by
the GMaps API and only positioned by OpenLayers. And even the way the
attribution is loaded is documented
(http://mapki.com/wiki/Google_Map_Parameters#Misc), but unfortunately
not in the official API docs.
I hope some day the organizations involved in OpenLayers can actively
help improve the Google Maps layer situation, by either convincing
Google to resolve the issues we have with the GMaps v3 API (which are
all reported in the GMaps issue tracker), or to allow tile access in
some way.
If anybody wants to get started with this way to improve the
situation, feel free to contact me for details on what we would need
to better integrate GMaps into OpenLayers.
Andreas.
On Aug 31, 2011, at 01:28 , Tim Schaub wrote:
Hey,
I regret to say we've got to hold off on the 2.11 release until we
pull the GoogleNG layer.
This layer uses the google.maps.MapType getTile method
(http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/javascript/reference.html#MapType)
to retrieve individual tiles and renders the layer as with other
XYZ layers.
A primary intent of Google's terms of use is that the individual
tiles are not accessed directly. Instead, users need to use the
whole map interface to render a layer. We've been given a bit of
grace with the way that we wrap the Google Maps API, but this case
is a more clear cut violation.
In addition, to display copyright information, the layer uses an
undocumented method of pulling in image attribution information.
There are cases where the attribution information we are displaying
is incorrect. Using an undocumented method and displaying improper
copyright information violate the terms of use.
I've put together a patch to remove the GoogleNG layer. Anybody
using this layer from the trunk should modify their examples to use
a different layer instead.
http://trac.osgeo.org/openlayers/ticket/3481
Tim
On 8/28/11 10:33 AM, christopher.schm...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to put forward a motion to release the current OL 2.11
RC3 as the final OL 2.11 release unless we hear any showstopping
regressions by Wednesday morning.
If anyone has any reason not to do this, speak now or forever
hold your peace :)
+1 crschmidt
-- Chris_______________________________________________ Dev
mailing list d...@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
-- Tim Schaub OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for
open source geospatial.
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list
d...@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
--
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
d...@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
