
Google is Forcing Routebuilder to Shut Down - Jerry2
https://medium.com/@andrewcmartin/google-maps-is-forcing-routebuilder-to-shutdown-615ce42f413a
======
jamest
[posting on behalf of my colleague @ Google]

Hi everyone, Google Product Manager for Maps APIs here. We are not revoking
Routebuilder’s access to the Maps API. Unfortunately, we mistakenly sent a
letter to Routebuilder saying that they were in violation of the Google Maps
API terms of service. This was an error. Once the developer contacted us about
this issue, we replied apologizing for the misunderstanding and confirming
that we would not be revoking his access to the Maps API. (He contacted us on
Friday, we replied on Monday, the blog post was published on the weekend.)

We’re really glad he let us know so we could fix the issue and we encourage
any developers that have issues in future to reach out to us so we can help.
Developers who want to contact the Google Maps APIs team: Stack Overflow and
our issue tracker forum ([https://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-
issues/](https://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-issues/)) are both monitored by
the Google Maps team weekly.

~~~
adsenseclient
Hahaha. We have been through this with AdSense. Without the negative PR Google
would have never replied. This is also a good lesson for the aspiring Play
Store Android developers.

------
RyanMcGreal
An oldie but a goodie:

 _Are You a Sharecropper? If you’re developing software for the Windows
platform, yes. Or for the Apple platform, or the Oracle platform, or the SAP
platform, or, well, any platform that is owned and operated by a company. They
own the ground you’re building on, and if they decide they don’t like you, or
they can do something better with the ground, you’re toast. They can ship
their own product and give it away till you go bust, then start charging for
it; and use secret APIs you can’t see; and they can break the published APIs
you use. All of these things have historically been done by platform vendors._

[https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePl...](https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace)

~~~
BinaryIdiot
Too bad that's a very outdated way of thinking. Today there is just no getting
around "Sharecropping". If you want your app in front of actual people you're
going to use a platform owned by Google, Apple, Microsoft or Blackberry. Sure
the web is still a place where you're not really a "Sharecropper" but compared
to native solutions the web doesn't give you everything you need for a fully
integrated and awesome user experience.

As much as I'd love for this to not be true it is and there isn't a way around
it. Even if you used an abstraction so you never technically write code
specific to Apple, Google, etc in the end it's still going to be deployed to
their platforms via their stores. Unless, of course, your market is strictly
the tiny niche of jailbreaks / manual installers of software.

~~~
unethical_ban
Colo your hardware, run open source software, and don't tie in to external
services. Most mobile apps can be mobile-web optimized, as a fallback if App
stores shut you out.

I like native apps mostly for their speed, but unless you're doing something
requiring a sensor on the phone, mobile web can do it all.

~~~
ebiester
...except get discovered by customers who look to the app store for trust.

~~~
unethical_ban
I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't trust jack from the Android store
unless I already know the vendor.

~~~
mindslight
Really? If you don't trust app stores and you end up with malware on your
phone, how do you expect to be able to write an incredulous blog post?

------
basseq
Just because Routebuilder was never called out for violating the ToS doesn't
mean it wasn't. Nor is there a "statute of limitations" for violations. What's
even more insidious is that the "duplicating GM functionality" is a) vague and
b) a moving target. Just because Routebuilder wasn't violating a decade ago
doesn't mean it's not violating now.

This is the risk you take building something on top of an API—access can be
cut off at any time.

~~~
nqzero
i think the point of the article, or at least our interest in it, is that this
is a terrible business arrangement. if you can't look at past tolerance as
evidence of acceptable use, then you effectively can't ever afford to invest
in building a business unless you're lawyered-up

and that's bad for tech, and bad for america

~~~
blantonl
Why is any other business obligated to help you invest in building your own
business?

Obviously, Google and others who have innovated in the space can set the terms
of service as onerous or ambiguous as they want to. You can choose whether or
not you want to invest in building something around someone else's products.

Don't like the TOS? Develop it yourself or use another product.

~~~
cookiecaper
There is a bunch of laws that govern what someone who has innovated,
developed, and authored can and can't dictate; they're called "intellectual
property laws". Even if they've collected it, Google does not own information
about the road system; facts themselves, like "Road A exists at lat X and long
Z", cannot be copyrighted.

See _Feist v. Rural Telephone_ for more on this. The only reason application
of _Feist_ is generally limited in cases of online access is because we have a
theory that accessing a publicly available database containing phone numbers
is akin to accessing someone else's private property, and therefore they can
dictate whatever they want under theories like trespass to chattels, whereas
consulting a printed telephone book in your home is decidely not accessing the
phone company's property.

This is a pernicious, subtle issue now that we're becoming so dependent on
online access provided by someone else's servers instead of accessing printed
documents that we possess in our homes. Possession is 9/10 of the law, as they
say. We need to rethink how "possession" applies to digital resources.

Likewise, there are laws around how much access a private property owner must
grant to members of the public, especially if that property owner is running a
business that is generally accessible to the public. Private property owners
are allowed to declare some people trespassers, but each jurisdiction has
different laws surrounding what the public can do on private property and when
a trespass is allowable. For example, California's state constitution
guarantees the right to hold reasonable protests in private shopping centers
that are generally accessible to the public, whether the property owner likes
it or not.

No one is saying there is a requirement for another business "to help invest"
in any other; there may be requirements not to interfere with someone else's
business by attempting to block what is otherwise public and freely available
access to non-copyrightable information.

IANAL.

Routebuilder is fortunate that OpenStreetMap has collected much of the same
data and that they can just code against a different API and continue to
operate.

~~~
detaro
_by attempting to block what is otherwise public and freely available access
to non-copyrightable information._

Mapping data is not "non-copyrightable information".

~~~
cookiecaper
"Mapping data" is too broad of a term, because it probably includes a lot of
copyrightable information. However, the factual basics, like GPS coords, are
not copyrightable.

~~~
detaro
An individual data point maybe not, but even something like "there is a road
between X1,Y1 and X2,Y2" you can't just extract from Google Maps and put in
OSM, at least not multiple times. There are surprisingly few generally usable
data sources (some government datasets that have been put under open licenses,
Microsofts permits to use Bing's aerial photography as a basis for OSM, ...)

~~~
cookiecaper
I'm not sure if OSM really needs to be as cautious as they are. I don't see
how you could argue that "Main St begins at X1, Y1" and "Main St end at X2,Y2"
is a single copyrightable work instead of 2 separate non-copyrightable facts.
The _sentence_ or _package_ which contains these two separate data points may
be a unique work that qualifies for copyright protection, but the raw data
points aren't once you separate them out.

Open-source projects have a history of being hyper-sensitive to these concerns
so that they never have to waste time with lawyers lobbing IP claims. A
certain distribution derived from the sources released by a prominent North
American enterprise Linux vendor comes to mind, as does WINE's refusal to
accept any code from anyone who has any relationship with or connection to
Microsoft whatsoever.

~~~
detaro
But you can't really separate these datapoints, at least not in a legally safe
manner. If you take a "work", reduce it down to the basic data it probably was
created from and rebuild a basically identical work, how do you defend against
the claim that you copied it? You could try to go through multiple steps, done
by different entities, and hope to hide that way, but coordinating that makes
you vulnerable again.

How could a project like OSM make sure that it didn't happen on a large,
clearly violating scale (because many people make copies of small parts,
recreating the larger, protected work), especially if it isn't established
what an internationally safe standard is.

In practice, you are right, you can copy a single street from google maps to
OSM. I bet some mappers in the history of OSM have traced screenshots of
google maps or something. But that is only safe because it can't be proven,
unless you are unlucky enough to copy a canary.

~~~
cookiecaper
If all you have is a compilation of facts, then yes, people can copy the data
points one by one, alter the format slightly, and have a wholly separate work
that has no legally recognized parentage. This is why you don't see a lot of
plain collections of facts for sale.

As far as I know, Google Maps is protected from scripts copying the data
points out only by its Terms of Use, which the CFAA basically eval()s into
law.

Google Maps won't disappear overnight because they do provide a substantial
amount of beneficial proprietary data, like the illustrations and private
aerial/satellite imagery (imagery from sources like NASA is public domain),
their scripts that allow easy embedding, the ability to connect to one's
Google account, and so forth. But there is no legal protection of the raw data
points used to build Google Maps as far as I know.

Let me reiterate that I'm not a lawyer and no one should do anything based on
my posts.

~~~
maxerickson
No protection for compilations of facts is not the case everywhere.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive)

[http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-
databases...](http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-
databases/index_en.htm)

------
franze
I wrote this 1689 days ago: "Why should anyone ever use a Google API ever
again?" [http://googlecode.blogspot.co.at/2011/05/spring-cleaning-
for...](http://googlecode.blogspot.co.at/2011/05/spring-cleaning-for-some-of-
our-apis.html?showComment=1306481143396&m=1#c3564212561169948866) Still true.

HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2592399](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2592399)

~~~
icebraining
_Why should anyone ever use a Google API ever again?_

Because you get a free high quality Maps API to use for a decade? What else
would you have used in 2006?

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Back in 2006 a bunch of us were building OSM precisely so this wouldn't be a
problem in the future. But I take your point.

------
udioron
It should be quite easy to port your app to use leaflet.js[1] and
openstreetmap/mapbox.

[1] [http://leafletjs.com/](http://leafletjs.com/)

~~~
dopamean
I second this as a frequent user of leaflet and openstreatmap. I started using
both about 2 years ago and it's remarkable how much progress has been made in
such a short amount of time.

------
terrabakky
I used to provide support on the Google Maps for Work API (any opinions are my
own etc.)

My best guess is that because the site is offering very similar functionality
to what is provided by the Google Maps API Drawing Tools [1] is the reason
you've been flagged. The Elevation chart appears to be the same as the sample
provided in the API documentation [2].

Yes, you offer additional functionality with the sharing of the routes and
other features on the site. The flagging of sites for TOS violations can be a
bit peculiar at times.

For reasons that I shouldn't get in to, I'd guess you won't much of a reply if
you try and discuss this notice by replying via email. I'm not sure who the
current Maps API Developer Relations contact is but they would be your best
bet for any proper discussion.

[1] -
[https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/...](https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/examples/drawing-
tools) [2]
-[https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/...](https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/javascript/examples/elevation-
paths)

------
specialdragon
"One option for me would be to rewrite routebuilder to run on another mapping
platform, but with an infant at home and a full-time job, I frankly don’t have
the time or energy."

\- Open source it (with or without the wrapper to Google Maps).

------
declan
Unfortunately I'd say the headline on the linked Medium.com post (by the
creator of Routebuilder) is a bit misleading.

I feel for the author, but Google is not "forcing Routebuilder to shut down."
Google is instead telling the owner of Routebuilder to find another API to
use. Routebuilder can find another API, pay to license data, etc. There are
alternatives rather than "shut[ing] down."

I know this probably sucks for the author, but this is the risk you take when
building your product on top of someone else's API without a separate contract
in hand--as many Twitter developers found out firsthand a few years ago. Their
service, their rules.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Isn't that a bit of a semantic nitpick? They're telling him to rework his site
(or his business model) in fourteen days. Whether they have the right to treat
developers on their platform like crud or not, it doesn't change the fact that
he is effectively being shut down.

~~~
declan
If you had a dog walking service with a route that crossed my property without
permission, and after some time I asked you not to do so, you might write a
blog post trumpeting: "Property owner is shutting me down." But others might
disagree.

There may be ways to preserve the viability of your dog walking service. You
can enter into an arrangement with me to use my property (which might include
a nominal fee), you can take a different route (inconvenient for you and your
customers, but not my problem), etc.

If the only way you can run your dog walking service is to take a shortcut
across my property without my permission, well, then the world is sending you
a message about the viability of your business.

Again, the mere fact that you and your dogs have grown accustomed to crossing
my property does not mean I'm "shut[ing] you down." And next time, maybe you
should secure written permission _before_ starting a business based on the
assumption that you'll have the right to use someone else's property forever
without paying.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I definitely think we'd be in a much better place if people building on
platforms had the ability to negotiate for some level of assurance of
continuity. It's important for people to have confidence in the platforms they
build on.

As an update, Google has backed down, and said they made an error, and they
won't force RouteBuilder to shutter in the next two weeks. But it sounds like
the developer has learned his lesson... as time permits, he's going to start
working on moving to another platform.

------
Zyst
I don't think Google is in the wrong here:

If you have a route between two points 'white dots' appear in the route, then
you can drag and drop those around to manually change the route, to share the
URL you can either copy the url at the top bar or just click the 'share'
option inside the hamburger menu, which gives you a minified link.

In the end, although it's an inferior(?) implementation, Google allows you to
do the exact same thing. I think the ToS call mentioned is essentially
appropriate.

Although it is a bit of a dick move, but in the end it is their api.

~~~
pmontra
It's a _vastly_ inferior implementation. Despite what the screenshot in the
post hints to, the actual implementation only lets users connect the pins by
straight lines. It doesn't follow roads and it doesn't do navigation. The
reason for that is explained in the FAQ.

So it's more or less what anybody would do on day 2 of learning the Google
Maps API, plus the save routes (cough...) thing. With that I don't intend to
show disrespect for the author, because it has been going on for 10 years with
people using it. Much better than anything I built for myself. I'm surprised
that Google is going after him. If that "re-implements or duplicates" anything
that Google does then almost everybody should receive a letter like that.

My guess is that the usage counter for this site eventually reached some limit
(10 years for that), a program noticed and the legal department sent a semi
automatic mail without an assessment of the service. Still it's probably in
their right to do so and it's another reason to use Open Street Map to build
this kind of services. Example: [http://cycle.travel/](http://cycle.travel/)
which does real routing. Furthermore OSM has many offroad tracks and it could
make happy the kind of people using routebuilder.

------
rplnt
The most interesting part about this story for me is that Google reached out
to them and didn't simply ban them without a notice or explanation.

~~~
dclowd9901
But it's completely unilateral. They're ignoring him otherwise.

~~~
gist
OP said:

> I have tried emailing the Google Maps team to plead my case, but my
> correspondence went unanswered.

Where did they write?

How many times did they write?

How long ago did they write?

Did they try any other means of contact?

Did they try to go through, as only one example, linkedin and find someone
that way (or any other way of researching a party that might be willing to
help)?

It's unclear the effort that was put in here. Maybe it was maybe it wasn't. We
don't have enough detail. Simply saying "my correspondance went unanswered" as
much as we may think Google doesn't care doesn't prove that point.

I actually from time to time write to companies to try and sell them things. I
put in effort and it appears that that greatly increases the chance that they
will buy what I am trying to sell to them (meaning a decision maker not a
clerk or the person who sorts thorough the spam). And email more than one time
for that matter. And if it's really important try a phone call.

------
burritojustice
open > proprietary: If you want routing (and elevation and a time-distance
matrix) based on open data, via an API with liberal licensing, all based on
open source code that you could run yourself if you wanted, you may want to
take a look at Mapzen's Turn-by-Turn routing. We built it to get away from
this kind of thing.

more here:
[https://mapzen.com/projects/valhalla](https://mapzen.com/projects/valhalla)
docs: [https://mapzen.com/documentation/turn-by-
turn/](https://mapzen.com/documentation/turn-by-turn/) API:
[https://mapzen.com/developers/](https://mapzen.com/developers/)

~~~
fixermark
Mapzen seems like a good idea, but I can't help but wonder (with respect): Can
a developer expect it to be here in 2026?

Seems like someone integrating against an API has the choice of "Use one from
a big company with a proven business model and risk their TOS changing to have
it taken away" vs. "Use one from a firm with only a few years of history and
risk them going dark one day (or changing their TOS)."

In this specific scenario, I'm not sure that this solution would guarantee the
developer could have avoided this failure mode.

~~~
burritojustice
A great question. That's why we make all the underlying source code open,
including chef and docker config info for people to build it themselves if
they want or need to.

[https://github.com/valhalla/](https://github.com/valhalla/)

We at Mapzen are explicitly designing our projects to outlast us (if
necessary).

[https://mapzen.com/blog/our-magna-carto](https://mapzen.com/blog/our-magna-
carto)

~~~
mikeg8
Id just like to say that I really like the design of your site, and logo in
particular. Well done.

------
jahlove
It took Google _a decade_ to decide this site was violating the Terms of
Service. Routebuilder does one narrow thing, it's not like they've creeped
into Google's territory over the years. Something's fishy -- someone on
slashdot suggested that it could be because of google's new fitness trackers
([http://fit.google.com](http://fit.google.com)) that they're flushing out any
sites at all similar. If that's the case, then sites like routebuilder should
be grandfathered into the TOS.

~~~
LoSboccacc
I would call that business as usual, more than fishy - those megacorp (MS,
Apple, Google) have a long track of killing competitors before entering their
space if at all possible, even if that means acquiring the whole business to
close it down.

------
dragonsh
Don't trust for profit organizations. Google might project itself as champion
of open source but the reality is their revenue, is a result of standing on
open source. Without gnu and Linux they will not even exist. When they needed
google maps users they opened up. But given their profit motive they will have
to shut down others which conflict with their profit. Its better to port
service to something open source, like openstreetmap. Google is turning into,
do every evil to generate value for shareholders. I think RMS fears of closed
source js are true. It's like Windows Binary blobs.

~~~
hellbanner
I've tried using OpenStreetMap -- but it doesn't seem to know the names of
places I go to, or sometimes even the area I'm in when I type certain city
names.

maps.google.com works great though. I wish I wasn't supporting Google's
massive operations but it _is_ convenient to use.

~~~
squeaky-clean
Do you mean you're using the map on
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/](https://www.openstreetmap.org/) to search for
things? This map isn't really meant to be searched, and the usability is
generally terrible, I'm not sure why they keep it up on the website. Zooming
in over my workplace (in Miami, FL) and searching "Pizza" brings up results
for Italy and Nigeria.

OpenStreetMap is a great datasource and set of APIs though, on which other
people have built really useful map applications. But OSM itself is not an
attempt to compete with all of Google Maps, just to provide high quality
tiles, path/nodes and place database to developers.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
Yep. osm.org's search is only a placename search, basically.

------
kennydude
Could it not be moved to Mapbox or OSM directly?

~~~
us0r
From the article: "One option for me would be to rewrite routebuilder to run
on another mapping platform, but with an infant at home and a full-time job, I
frankly don’t have the time or energy."

~~~
ocdtrekkie
And Google's given him a mere fourteen days to rework around a different API.
For a program so hinged on an API like this, I imagine the amount of work to
do that is probably quite significant.

------
SFjulie1
Nul ne peut se prévaloir de ses propres turpitudes. No one can prevail that a
successful lasting violation of law worth recognition of it as an accepted
legal usage.

(Except if you are rich and have guns because when it comes to owning lands,
occupying long enough a place is legally owning).

I do agree that the ToS are shit. They were since the beginning. What new
brands are doing is called : claiming rights on the second creation.

They give you proprietary shovels with open API to rush for gold, and once you
have taken the risks and you can make money they can decide to let you live or
not.

People laughed at me 10 years ago with this topic.

Entrepreunariat is about being a jake of all trades. You cannot be weak
neither in coding, nor economy, nor business, nor accounting, nor legal
contracts. You skipped "the leg days" of business. Reading the contracts and
evaluating the risks, assessing the uncertainties. And you failed.

Well. Blame it on you and your blindness. Don't appeal to my pity.

Vae Victis. That is the way of business, and you should take responsibility
for your own bad choices and understand that with great power comes more
painful arrows in the knees.

All people supporting your claims should rather also think of the consequences
of sustaining unsound business practices. If you would win, it would be yet
another loss for all of a fair competition on the market.

I actually love your idea and have a lot of respect for your realization.
Building is great. Making lasting products and risk management is even more
important.

So, please shutdown your site and share the depressing conclusions you will
come to. Learn like a true entrepreneur, and go back to work with your newly
acquired knowledge, and think of whether or not you can rebuild your product
on better foundations.

Success is not what make business man. It is overcoming your failure. The only
true capital of a business man is fortitude.

~~~
AKifer
Well said, learn and look forward, that's the only way.

------
dpcan
What's the whole story here? Is it because he created a way for people to
create routes, and is not using the official Google Maps API method for
creating/showing routes? If he just altered his app to use Google's approved
method, would he be fine?

~~~
andrewguenther
Google Maps already provides a way for you to share routes, Routebuilder is
duplicating that functionality (even if it makes it easier) which is a
violation of Google Maps' ToS.

~~~
Someone1234
> Google Maps already provides a way for you to share routes

Does it? Where?

Map Maker doesn't do what the article claims it does. It doesn't try to
reproduce Routebuilder at all. It allows you to fix errors in Google Map's
data, it isn't useful for creating new custom routes for specific purposes
(e.g. races, sightseeing, etc).

~~~
kbrosnan
Here is an example of a Google maps route from Providence to Boston for
bicycling, [https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?hl=en-
US&mid=zH358fz1z920...](https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?hl=en-
US&mid=zH358fz1z920.kAlJZ89Jw4Kc)

------
bambax
Email from Google doesn't state what feature(s) they feel is replicated by the
site, which is strange.

I wonder if it has something to do with elevation? For some reason it seems
GMaps is very protective about elevation data; if the site recently gained
some momentum and they noticed many elevation requests, maybe it could explain
this sudden (late) reaction?

~~~
tonfa
I'm not even sure how the site differs from a site like [http://www.gmap-
pedometer.com/](http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/) (afaik it also allows the
share the routes).

------
jitendrac
Currently your site is violating the terms of google map usage. you can not
ask them to allow you to keep on violating their terms.

The better solution would be to write them the letter to allow you to
implement the functionality of your own with in some specific time period (may
be 1 month)

Then, Create your own solution on some open standards or tech I recommend you
to use openstreetmap
mbtiles([http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MBTiles](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/MBTiles))
I have worked with them, they are tricky but really great.

~~~
Ensorceled
Why, exactly, _can 't_ he ask them if can keep on violating their terms?

I don't get this attitude, Google is well within their rights to shut him
down. He's well within his rights to ask for forgiveness and to complain about
Google if they don't.

They're a corporation, not some feudal lord that is owed fealty.

~~~
jitendrac
Google Map and its services are the intellectual property of google.They may
setup any rules and terms they want for their service regulation(also to
prevent any misuse of service).

~~~
Ensorceled
Yes, yes. We all agree on that. By why are you saying that " you can not ask
them to allow you to keep on violating their terms". Why is asking them for an
exception forbidden?

------
theaccordance
Pretty sure that Under Armor's MapMyFitness webapp has a route builder that
uses the Google Maps API as well

------
kregasaurusrex
I used to use [http://runningmap.com/](http://runningmap.com/) to plan out
routes for short-distance running in my neighborhood; but they stopped
updating the site and my guess is their API key had gotten revoked as well.

------
cognivore
"These people have forgotten that all application interfaces ... used to be
“richer environments,” and the users abandoned them by the millions, in favor
of the browser, the moment they got a chance"

And then they abandoned the web browser in even larger numbers to download
"apps," which provided a richer environment to interact with their portable
personal computer (or "smartphone").

Web browsers absolutely suck for UI, and they're not redeemed by their lack of
complexity. When there is a easy, viable, alternative to a web browser for a
program to run on users's computers you'll see browsers dropped, and hopefully
go back to what they were intended for - browsing interlinked documents.

------
kazinator
Hmm, what about the Gmap Pedometer? [http://www.gmap-
pedometer.com](http://www.gmap-pedometer.com)

There is nothing on that site, or its forum, about any impending shutdown.

Been using that (on and off) for a very long time. The changelog goes back to
mid-2005; just months after Google Maps was announced.

This site lets you build routes and save them as permanent objects that you
can share links to. It's useful for runners, cyclists, etc.

Just trying RouteBuilder: looks like a knockoff of Gmap Pedometer, only
capable of connecting straight line segments (doesn't follow roads). That is
irrelevant though; both sites basically wrap Google Maps in the same way.

------
lifeisstillgood
This is the very early signs of a trend that is going to grow - the conversion
of private conquest of the Internet into public goods.

Google has two huge advantages in search - they have scraped links off every
web page, which can be replicated (see Bing, DuckDuckGo) and they have user
behaviour visiting those pages (did they immediately return to results page
after hitting ,#1?)

There are good arguments to be made that both data sets are public goods, and
indeed that it was unfair to use user generated content / data without
licensing

There are of course arguments to the contrary. but googles jewels are too
valuable to be left alone for lomg

------
crikli
I'm unclear as to how the Google's ToS are being violated. He's not
reimplementing anything that Google has provided.

If I want to create a route from my condo down to the walking path, along the
path to the high school, and back to my place there is not a way to do this
within Google Maps.

I use this service quite frequently when traveling and my training schedule
says "2.0 mile run" or whatever. I can create a circuitous route
starting/ending at my hotel. Not a way to really do this in Google Maps. So,
again, how is clause 10.4(c) being violated?

~~~
soylentcola
Maybe I misunderstood your example but I've always found this to be pretty
easy in Google Maps. I just picked a random spot on the map where there was a
park (with some walking paths) and made a custom route. Took longer to pick a
location for the example than it took to make the map:
[https://goo.gl/5TcdGz](https://goo.gl/5TcdGz)

~~~
crikli
I must be dense then. I'm unable to figure out how to do this.

~~~
soylentcola
Open Google Maps in a browser. Enter your starting location. Find points along
your path, right click, and choose "add destination". Repeat until you have
your path. Then you can click and drag the blue line of the path if you want
to take a different route than the one that is auto-generated. If you choose
"walking" instead of driving or transit it will include any walking paths in
the database.

------
Perixoog
>One option for me would be to rewrite routebuilder to run >on another mapping
platform, but with an infant at home >and a full-time job, I frankly don’t
have the time or >energy.

Just install UMap instead.

[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UMap](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UMap)

[https://github.com/umap-project/umap](https://github.com/umap-project/umap)

------
beedogs
Do no evil, except for fucking over developers left and right.

------
timlyo
I wonder how easily they could switch to open street map.

------
balls187
Not a lawyer.

My gut feel is Google writes their TOS that are concrete enough to be
enforceable at some basic legal level, but vague enough to be a catch-all
enforcement.

It's crummy that Google is claiming that Routebuilder is violating their ToS,
but not telling them _how_ it's violating or why they have deemed Routebuilder
a violate of that specific ToS clause.

It definitely feels like large company bullying tactics, which are hard for
small/medium and independent companies to fight, without investing (read:
wasting) money on legal fees.

This is less about "oh if you don't like the terms, build it yourself" but
rather the spirit of which Google was founded.

Facebook and Twitter have pulled this same nonsense as well: encourage all
developers build their apps on top of their platforms, to help grow the active
user base. Once they become critical mass/gate keepers, swing the doorshut for
all except those who are willing to do _everything_ that they are asked of.

The kick in the balls is how Google built their organization on top of open-
software, but now has adopted the same corporate policies that
closed/proprietary software vendors like MSFT have used.

"Do no evil."

~~~
timonovici
Once you're no longer the underdog, your views on the world shift 180 degrees
:) But worry not, everyone is riding a "sine wave" \- Google comes, Google
goes. There's some physics theory that applies here - entropy, I guess.

~~~
cornchips
"What goes up must come down."

― Isaac Newton

------
outside1234
Just move on to Open Street Maps.

------
buro9
Isn't this interesting.

Effectively Google are saying that they have rights over the design of the API
interface.

Yet isn't that their argument in the Oracle Java case, that an API itself
isn't a protectable thing?

~~~
teraflop
No, this has nothing to do with intellectual property rights.

Google is not claiming any legal right to prevent anyone from creating
something that looks like Google Maps. They're simply saying that they don't
have to give you the Google Maps API for free to do so.

Also, this is about a user interface, not an API.

------
omegote
Well there are other apps that perform similar as op's, for instance the
software Tyre - which they charge for by the way. Looks like you've gotten too
popular...

------
espin
How is Routebuilder different from
[http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/](http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/)?

------
dawnbreez
It used to be that Google didn't play dirty.

When did that change?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
When Larry Page became CEO, basically.

~~~
wangii
When Google was no longer growing rapidly. The gravity crushed ideology.

~~~
awqrre
Was that at the same time that they dropped their "Don't be evil" motto?

------
blindfly
I can't tell how this Routebuilder thing is any better than just right
clicking and 'distance to here'?

~~~
maxerickson
There is an option in the context menu on maps.google.com "Measure distance"
that it overlaps with even more. No obvious way to share the measured Google
path though.

------
whistlerbrk
For crying out loud. They have billions and billions of dollars of cash on
hand. Just do the right thing and buy the company. It looks good for them, it
looks good for you, it looks good for the ecosystem. Just buy them!

~~~
krapp
How would that be the right thing for Google? They don't need Routebuilder,
and they don't need the PR boost. Google certainly doesn't need to set a
precedent that any company that depends on their APIs can expect to be
acquired if they violate their TOS long enough.

------
bitL
Anyone still finds Google relevant for anything? They are making sure nobody
wants to be their friend again. Search got so bad in the past few years ("bbut
our metrics show it's more relevant than evar!") that DDG doesn't even have to
try. Sad.

Lately if I want to watch YouTube, I have to agree to their privacy policies.
If I turn off everything, I have to do the same a few days later. Antipatterns
everywhere...

What happened to you guys? We want the great old Google back please!

~~~
toxik
Sorry, but this is absurd. DuckDuckGo is nowhere _near_ Google in terms of
revenue, brand trust, and most importantly: search result relevance.

~~~
bitL
The point is that DDG is now "good enough". I am also a bit unhappy they are
embracing some approaches that made Google worse though... And Google - the
only profitable part is their search + ads. If they let this slip, what would
remain? A hollow shelf like when SUN imploded?

------
lowglow
This is exactly the reason why Playa's building Terms of Service that are
friendly to developers. I got tired of people building great apps, only to
have the platform shut them down, or worse, blatantly rip them off.

Our platform promises never to compete with anyone building working products
on top of the platform. I want people to do well, grow a business, and build
something with their time that works for them.

Playa is made by hackers, for hackers.

I asked for feedback on some of these concepts a couple of weeks back, add to
it if you'd like and help lay down the foundation:

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AgYQ3f61Yrk_HXSbdZtCRyiu...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AgYQ3f61Yrk_HXSbdZtCRyiuIvikkHNqbBislGp03Ow/edit?usp=sharing)

