[#684120005] Google Notification to GMapCatcher

[GoogleCodeExporter]

from:   Maps API Usage Questions <maps-api-usage-questions@google.com>
date:   Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:41 AM

Hi All,

It has been brought up to our attention that your application(at
http://code.google.com/p/gmapcatcher/) seems to be caching or extracting
content from Google Maps/Earth in a way that might be against our Terms of
Service, available at http://maps.google.com/help/terms_maps.html

Please note that according to these Terms you shouldn't use the service in
a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or
bulk feeds of any content, including but not limited to numerical latitude
or longitude coordinates, imagery and visible map data. You may also refer
to the permission guidelines for Google Maps and Google Earth available at
http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html

Please stop this practice and respond to us. If you have any questions
feel free to reply to this email.

Kind Regards,
The Google Maps Team

Original issue reported on code.google.com by heldersepu on 27 Aug 2010 at 1:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

i think removing capability of bulk download in code will solve the problem.
it's ok to view and cache viewed tiles. it's will be enough.

Original comment by pokr...@gmail.com on 28 Aug 2010 at 12:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I agreed. I never used bulk download feature also. viewing and caching tiles 
are basic functions for any apps using google api out there. so I think it will 
be fine.

Original comment by mrdu...@gmail.com on 28 Aug 2010 at 5:45

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Isn't the trouble that many map providers allow bulk downloads, so we have to 
simply disallow bulk downloads from google - inter alia; however for an 
individual to allow such downloads, all they'll have to do is to modify/comment 
one python statement, hence it's virtually as simple as clicking a confirm 
button? Is it even right to make such a distinction - to distinguish those who 
are sufficiently technically self-confident to modify one python statement from 
those who won't?

Aside from the obvious fact that the web is not - yet! :-) - a proprietary 
domain, so it seems legally infeasible for a provider to *legally* limit the 
volume of non-malicious access to their website / public URLs, even though they 
could technically do so were it not a serious limitation of their commercial 
potential;

Moreover I feel it's kind of unrealistic - for the 'modify one python 
statement' reason - for us as devs to force google's bullyboy policy down the 
throats of eventual less-technical gmapcatcher users

well that's my 2c worth at least :-)

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 29 Aug 2010 at 6:05

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Today I got a reply from the Maps API Compliance Team:

from    Maps API Usage Questions <maps-api-usage-questions@google.com>
date    Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:34 AM
subject Re: [#684120005] Google Notification to GMapCatcher

Hi Helder,

The code ( http://code.google.com/p/gmapcatcher/source/detail?r=928# )
that you have added warns the user that the action they are initiating is
not permitted by the Terms of Use. However it still gives the user the
option of proceeding. Consequently we believe it does not comply with
section 2e of the Google Maps/Earth Terms of Service which states:

"you must not ... use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other
person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content"

The key phrase here is "or any other person". By allowing the user to
continue to download Maps even after they have been warned that this is
not permitted, the developers are giving the user access to mass downloads
or bulk feeds of this content.

So you are still not in compliance. Please stop this practice as soon as
possible.

Kind Regards,
Ruchi,
The Maps API Compliance Team

Original comment by heldersepu on 7 Sep 2010 at 12:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You live in Florida, I gather? They allow jury trial in civil cases in Florida, 
perhaps you should remind google of that :-D

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 7 Sep 2010 at 12:50

[GoogleCodeExporter]

ps before you write back, could be worth thinking of alternate hosting such as 
github

more specifically, 'we believe' is not law, it is google bullying; it is not 
'the developers' who "giv[e people] access to bulk downloads", it is 'the 
internet', perhaps 'the internet' should be the defendant :-D

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 7 Sep 2010 at 12:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Im surprised Ruchi didn't mention 2a :)

Well, web is not a proprietary domain but google maps data and services are. 
And by using it via web browser or google earth people agree with terms of use. 
Whether it is or it is not "limitation of their commercial potential" doesn't 
matter at all. Owner of the data sets the terms.

What makes URL "private"? :) So if somebody wants to put 2 computers on 
internet - he needs to make connection between 2 branches of his small dynamic 
growing company - it means - hallo people, anybody can get to the computers! 
They are mine, but I connected them to internet so you are right to do anything 
to them. Have a fun :)
Mark, are you sure this is OK? I don't think so.

Does github make any change?!

Original comment by standa31...@gmail.com on 8 Sep 2010 at 8:58

[GoogleCodeExporter]

well, git allows parallel branches, plus is generally more advanced than svn; 
there's a git for windows although how good it is I'd need to check; macports 
too; github allows bug tracking, downloads, etc, so is similar in most ways 
save that arbitrariness won't pull the plug :-)

As for the law, standa, what do you define as 'data ownership'? Copyright? Say 
for instance, for the sake of simplification, google has purchased the 
copyright to the images - reasonably true for the sat images, a simplification 
for the maps/overlays; copyright law specifically allows people to cache data, 
that is all we allow people to do; Say someone were making additional use of / 
publishing / etc the data, *that* would potentially be a breach of copyright, 
not the caching of it; even there, there is a grey area in terms of web 
content, as copyright is often deemed effectively waived when data is made 
accessible; what do you think for instance the web archive does?

As for the notion of connecting your own computers, well legally every 
non-malicious chancer would be allowed to download such data [as they could 
reasonably claim was non-maliciously requested] in a generally authorized 
manner; However practically, all data aside from data that a server is 
publicizing to the web, would be considered intended kept private - ie 
unauthorized; a grey area would be for instance windows folder sharing defaults

Now as for authorization / private URLs, well it's reasonably simple; a 
password-protected area is prima facie 'unauthorized' while files made freely 
accessible from a web server's http protocol port 80 are prima facie authorized;

This is when we reach the question of the proprietary web; google, in claiming 
the right to define what *it* thinks of as authorization, would bring the web 
to its knees, as for instance say I put up a website, including in a relatively 
obscure location some terms that say no-one who has ever belonged to a 
right-wing political party is allowed to surf my website at all, then I could 
potentially sue anybody who had some kind of right-wing affiliation who surfed 
my website? Utterly ridiculous, it's up to me to at least put up some kind of 
technical hurdle, a notification page at the very least, before claiming my 
right to filter surfers; google's lack of such a page simply serves their own 
commercial interests - it would discourage surfers - so our addition of such a 
'page' is entirely the correct way of handling it; heck there's not even a link 
to the terms from maps.google.com, you have to basically specifically search 
for them

To return to their specific contentions, it's clear that 'gives [a] person 
access to bulk downloads' is precisely what *the web* does, when google refuses 
to implement a technical barrier to that - it's up to them to do so, not us, 
although they won't for obvious commercial reasons, hence the bullying; unless 
they're thinking of paying us, we should hold firm as we're independent of 
them, we have no reason for serving their whims

ps 'by using it via web browser [..] people agree with terms of use' is not 
right, people need to at least view the page that contains the terms, possibly 
click an accept button/check, to truly agree; even then there is some question 
whether 'click-through' agreements are really valid

For similar reasons, unless we had an API key, we're not bound by the API terms 
either, hence the apparent misunderstanding in that we're written to from 
someone in the 'API compliance team'

As for 2a, hopefully even they notice that we are basically a browser, albeit a 
very specific kind of browser

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 8 Sep 2010 at 11:58

[GoogleCodeExporter]

pps as for 2a, no worries; after you've given in to their interpretation of the 
legal effect of 2e, 2a would be the future bone of contention :-D

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 8 Sep 2010 at 12:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Mark, thank you for long explanation.

IMO using warning dialog box that allows users to continue is not enough. User 
must not have option to download at all. If he/she changes source code it's 
his/her responsibility.

> heck there's not even a link to the terms from maps.google.com, 
> you have to basically specifically search for them

Not true. 
When you display web interface to googlemaps (maps.google.com or your own 
webpage using "Google Maps JavaScript API V3" - for example see 
http://code.google.com/intl/en/apis/maps/documentation/javascript/basics.html 
paragraph "Region Localization") there is line at the bottom of the map. Starts 
"(C) 2010 Google - Imagery..." ends with link to "Terms of Use".

When you display web presentations of big corporations like www.microsoft.com, 
www.oracle.com, www.ibm.com, www.sony.com, www.verizon.com,... - there is 
always link to Terms of Use or Terms or something very similar. I don't think 
all this corps. with army of lawyers have this link because they just like it. 
I would be very careful about it.

> when google refuses to implement a technical barrier to that

Not true.
Lets have for example URLs of the tiles: 
http://mt0.google.com/vt/lyrs=m@132&hl=en&x=322&y=701&z=11&s=Gal
http://mt0.google.com/vt/lyrs=m@132&hl=en&x=696&y=899&z=11&s=Gal
(Got links by network sniffer using my web browser.)
It is very simple to create script using fer example wget. Script creates URLs 
for tiles with (322 <= x <= 696) and (701 <= y <= 899). One can get this way 
tiles for much of North America.
Can you tell me, how many tiles you downloaded this way? :)
You didn't get all? What happened? They have technical barrier? Damn it.

> we should hold firm
I agree. But I'm not convinced yet.

Original comment by standa31...@gmail.com on 9 Sep 2010 at 8:42

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Standa,

thanks for helping me notice the link to the terms - I've noticed it before, it 
must have been hiding in camouflage when I looked :-)

I seem to have managed to put together a shell script to download tiles - in 
fact it was unstoppable wget must involve thread/fork

#!/bin/bash
server=0
for h in {322..696}
do
    for v in {701..899}
    do
        let "server += 1"
        let "server %= 3"
        wget -U "new sample browser version 0.0.1.1" "http://mt$server.google.com/vt/lyrs=m@132&hl=en&x=$h&y=$v&z=11"
    done
done

basically their 'technical restriction' is at most a speed bump, no more than 
that

My main feeling is that quick capitulation serves us no purpose at all; google 
should already be wary of potential adverse publicity, that would be all the 
more true were there ever a real threat of legal action involving a rather 
dodgy legal basis; besides a jury, at least, should be willing to think of 
david vs goliath; so basically our only real risk is of needing to change 
hosting; sourceforge is a possible too; aside from all that even the vague 
possibility of judgment in google's favor would be for pennies, the additional 
cost of the server load that could be proven to result from our program :-D

Best

Mark

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 9 Sep 2010 at 6:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I think you guys are doing the right thing by not giving in to Google's request 
to remove the bulk download functionality.  They are providing the information 
online, so if a user makes a decision to cache what they download that is legal 
I think, but also the users responsibility, gmapcatcher is just a download tool 
and can't be illegal.
cheers,
Jamie

Original comment by truespa...@hotmail.com on 10 Sep 2010 at 3:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ad technical barrier - explanation:
Several months ago using python and downloading tiles using URl different only 
in 'x' and 'y' (parameter 's' was set to constant value) I was able to download 
only few tiles (100 or may be up to thousand) after that I started to get HTTP 
error reply with some kind of 'violating' message. Next few days I was unable 
to download any useful data.

I am unable to get the same error now. So I'd like to take back my argument - 
existing technical barrier.

If I get to it somehow, I let you know.

standa.

Original comment by standa31...@gmail.com on 14 Sep 2010 at 12:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Some interesting points are being made here to be sure, and its good to see you 
dudes/dudettes are not buckling to the pressure, keep on rocking. If people are 
limited from downloading certain amounts of data, then what is to say everyone 
could not download a quota or certain area of 'the world', zip it up and then 
share such information via torrents on the internet? 

This would be helping you out kindly Google would it not? If it is hogging 
bandwidth that is denying a fair service to others as you claim. Then we should 
all download a small chunk and share those small chunks with everyone else, and 
then your bandwidth problems would be solved Google.  

Liberating the world from the hands of the corporation. Sounds kinda catchy i 
reckon. But then what happens if you hurt one corporation? Another one usually 
gains. We need to bring them all down together at the same time, maybe ;). 

But in the meantime liberating the world sounds cool to me. 
Such information should not be for sale, it should be available for all. As 
humankind. I thought Google according to your very humane sounding idealism, 
that you 'wern't evil'. 

I suggest you refrain then from threatening people who are trying to help 
humanity, and not just line their pockets with gold. 

Lots of love - Dan xx

Original comment by ObiDanKi...@googlemail.com on 14 Sep 2010 at 11:54

[GoogleCodeExporter]

i don't think that we are should ignore google's request.
maps is their property. so they are have rights to say on which conditions they 
are allow to use their product.
easy way to violate somebody's rights does not give a rights to do such.
i think there is should be compromise.
for example, if google want to show ads to those who view the map, so maybe it 
better to add google's ads when show google's maps. or something else.

Original comment by pokr...@gmail.com on 15 Sep 2010 at 12:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

pokrash, when someone knocks on your door with a hammer, you tend to answer 
them negatively; let google make a sensible request for a reasonable acceptable 
compromise then we'll possibly be more persuadable; as for me, I'm not 
convinced advertising beside the maps is appropriate, my thinking is that in 
fact this is a wake-up call to google to improve the way it adds placement to 
maps - hotspots [would need API], advertiser visibility/emphasis etc rather 
than lists beside the map;

As for 'ownership', as I've already said it's a term that is ill-fitted to 
internet serving of data, while the use of the word 'rights' to refer to a 
corporation's profit motive is kind of dangerous, as there is no real parallel 
to for instance individual human rights

@Standa, there's a 404 forbidden - the message says 'suspected automation' - 
unless you vary the server number; even so, the 'technical hurdle' that I was 
thinking of was more in the nature of a password-protected / captcha-protected 
access to the tiles, that would identify an 'authorized' zone, an important 
notion in the law of the internet; generally, similar to the prominence / 
inevitability of click-to-acccept of the terms, it's an incremental factor, I'd 
say there's a clear flavor of google not bothering very much as all such 
hurdles would limit the number of 'customers'

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 17 Sep 2010 at 7:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

@Mark: Thanks :) I was trying even constant server name, but was unable to get 
the 404. If I understand correctly this 'suspected automation' is what I was 
looking for and it is base for my argument - this is technical barrier. Whether 
it is enough or not for a low, i don't know.

Original comment by standa31...@gmail.com on 17 Sep 2010 at 2:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

A couple of points if i may.

Firstly perhaps some sort of discussion feature/board e.t.c would be a useful 
appendix to this current website, as is, its only really issues that one can 
talk about. An area for suggestions/discussion to improve things might be a 
good shout maybe?

Secondly aRe there plans to implement a shape down of the code, so as to reduce 
the ability to use the mass download function anytime soon? If so i take it, it 
would be preferable to stick with an older version of the program merely to 
download the tiles? Then switch to a newer version for the usability 
improvements. 

Lastly, and this is a bit of a change of scenery, is it possible to download 
the tiles and | the download directly into a zipping/archiving program of some 
kind? I've noticed when zipping up the various 'levels' of maps that the amount 
one can compress the files/tiles is quite significant. I.e the entire level 5 
or 6 of maps tiles(can't remember which) is about 80GB in size (at least) 
uncompressed but only about 10GB once compressed. This method of piping the 
tiles directly into a compressor of some sorts, would mean that one could 
archive vast amounts of files into a relatively small space. 

I suppose the next issue would be if your program could retrieve these files 
from the archive relatively quickly, it would make for an extremely efficient 
way of storing files, and having access to a significant 'database' of mappery 
on a relatively small harddrive. 

Just an idea anyways.

Keep up the good work fellas. 

- Dan

Original comment by ObiDanKi...@googlemail.com on 17 Sep 2010 at 7:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Latest email from Google Maps Team:

Hi,

As mentioned in our previous email, it has been brought up to our
attention that your application might be in violation of our Google Maps
and Earth API Terms of Service, available at
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/terms.html

While we are unable to give you legal guidance in this matter, we remind
you that Google reserves the right to suspend or terminate your use of the
service at any time. Google also reserves the right to exercise or enforce
any legal right or remedy contained in the Terms of Service.

Please stop this practice and respond to us within 3 days. If we do not
hear from you, we might be forced to initiate legal action against you.

Sincerely,
The Google Maps Team

Original comment by heldersepu on 24 Sep 2010 at 12:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Threaten.

How Google to take 'legal action' to us? Our project is hosted at Google, they 
can attend us and remove the feature by themselves.

However, for our safety, I suggest us to remove the bulk downloading buttons in 
our next version.

Original comment by pi3or...@gmail.com on 24 Sep 2010 at 1:03

[GoogleCodeExporter]

for our safety sounds distinctly as though it's giving in to bullying though?

Myself I'd resist, although I won't speak for everyone - how brave are we all 
feeling? :-D

keep your local files up-to-date as we may need to upload them to 
github/sourceforge :-)

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 24 Sep 2010 at 1:11

[GoogleCodeExporter]

remember, too, that 'our safety' is from a legal action that would net google 
at most pennies, plus considerable criticism for its disproportionate methods

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 24 Sep 2010 at 1:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

So what exactly do the google terms of service demand from this project? Do 
they dislike the client software, or the amount of bytes downloaded from their 
free service?
Caching data happens in every browser. There are many more http clients than 
just the browsers, each of them being able to store the downloaded images as 
local files (==caching). I do not know what google desires.

Original comment by peschul...@web.de on 24 Sep 2010 at 8:36

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Oh how i love corporations, for all the suffering they cause my fellow 
human-beings. 

I have a point i should like to make regarding proceedings in a court of law. 

As far as i am aware corporations are always named in a dispute i.e 'googliath 
vs David'. 

Now how in a dispute/court of law is it fair to have a 
corporation/conglomerate, which consists of many people stand against one 
single person? A corporation is not a human-being therefore to allow such 
proceedings to take place is surely fundamentally unjust is it not?

We could also add the fact that the corporations are the ones passing 'laws' 
that are beneficial to themselves in the first place, using such methods as 
lobbying e.t.c to pass laws that suit them and their vested interests. This has 
truly corrupted and rotted away the very integrity of our law-making systems 
has it not?

A law to say you can't share with your fellow human-beings (DRM e.t.c) wonder 
who passed that 'law' through. I sincerely doubt it was the 'people'. 

When this parasite (corporations in general) has infected our law systems and 
culture to such a degree that they have a monopoly or total control of certain 
areas, what is stopping them from setting the prices as they see fit, stripping 
down freedoms, and ultimately enslaving people?

We are starting to see the begginnings of this turn of events come into 
fruition. Car insurance, you checked how much that costs lately? Gas/electric 
all suddenly rising and being blamed on the recession. 

Its like a big excuse though for corporations isn't it... the recession (that 
they caused in the first place)...the raising of electric/gas utility 
bills..corporations answer = well its the reccession innit geez, need to tax 
you more...car insurance premiums being raised to extortionate rates = 
corporations bullshit excuse = well its the winter innit and also yeah people 
are claiming more bogusly,= thatll do..theyll buy that... = hike the prices. 

Job agencies getting their grubby little mitts on a monopoly of labour force. 
You been to the jobcentre lately? 90 per cent of the jobs (granted a guess but 
check it out for yourselves) are via agencies. So basically they take a cut of 
your wages and strip you pretty much completely of your rights (i.e they can 
fire you at any point, without really any reason). And if you refuse any jobs 
on the grounds that you are being exploited? Well apparently they can cut your 
benefits. But in response to that i say this...these agencies are services 
which you (the customer) use in order to acquire employment, it would be a 
guess but i would say it is against your human-rights to have to accept a 
service, and that you can choose whether or not to put business in that 
agencies way or not. If your benefits are cut because you didn't apply for a 
job via the agency, i would say you are probably in a fairly good position to 
argue the above point. 

Of course the counter-measures already installed for not accepting such 
employment would be :- well he/she doesn't want to work and as such due to 
negative stigmatisation is outcast. This is insanity!! and i say to those 
people, what happens when everyone has no choice but to accept these jobs and 
the choice is taken away from them? Then these agencies have total control of 
workers. In that pretty much every job will become via an agency and people 
will be able to be hired and fired in a heartbeat, and 'worker rights' will no 
longer exist. 

For the sake of the next generations to come we cannot and should not allow 
this to happen. We cannot just keep burying our heads in the sand and say, well 
what can we do, its pointless e.t.c. Thats a loser mentality and that is 
exactly what this world would want you to think. Instead we all need to start 
taking responsiblity for this situation in our own little ways, whatever they 
may be, and do what we can no matter how small it may seem, to make things 
better, that is our duty as human-beings is it not?

Then if thats our duty we are all failing pretty heinously right now aren't we. 
So we all need to buckle down and do what we can, to re-empower ourselves as a 
people, even if it seems small or insignificant at first. Even if it involves 
making some sacrifices along the way. 

I tell you if they keep squeezing and squeezing us, theyre gonna get a shock 
pretty soon, and their outright greed will be their own downfall. 

What happens when these corporations that have monopolies over certain 'areas' 
merge into giant conglomerates? Then more and more power becomes concentrated 
into fewer and fewer hands. Surely this would end in a 1984-like scenario? 
Except its not really communism that would of caused such a scenario as 1984, 
which it would have you believe is it? It is in fact the current system which 
the western world uses, which logically results in such an end-game scenario. 

Capitalism is the syringe, corporations are the flesh eating bacteria.  

So 1984 was always just propoganda and along with other 'paintings' put in 
place over the course of the last century, it would have people believe that 
communism (i.e working together, look at the deriatives and use some common 
sense ;) commune, communal e.t.c) will result in such a gloomy scenario, when 
ironically as we see in our current world situation, it is going to be 
capitilism to create such a place. 

We always have hope however, and we can make a change, this world would have 
you believe that you cannot, but i tell you that is total bull-shit. We the 
people can decide when enough is enough, and anyone who tells you otherwise, 
needs to open their eyes and do something about it. 

I do realise however that everyone is entitled to their own views and beliefs 
and saying such things could be compared to being a 'armchair warrior' e.t.c. 
At the end of the day it is you dudes facing the possible repercussions for 
your actions and no amount of moral support could or should ever change that 
fact. 

In such a situation it would be prudent to do some risk-assessment, is the risk 
really worth it? I find it sad that Google is being all petty about the 
mass-download function and wanting to threaten legal-action. But then there are 
of course other courses of action that can be utilized. 

For example as i earlier mentioned, say you did in fact limit the bulk download 
function, which is reasonable conisdering you are in the firing line. What 
would stop a massive amount of people (i.e anyone who uses googlemaps) from 
caching and then sharing their unique individual information with one another 
on a network other than google. i.e bit-torrent e.t.c, this would be helpful to 
google because as they mentioned it is the 'server-load' that they are so 
worried about, and in a way the above actions would actually decrease google's 
server load, would it not?

Anyways whatever course of action/non-action you dudes choose to persue, i have 
to say i appreciate the work you've done with your program its well cool. 

- Dan

Original comment by ObiDanKi...@googlemail.com on 24 Sep 2010 at 9:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Don't take my word for it about capitalism though,

Einstein was saying it 60 years ago!

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

Original comment by ObiDanKi...@googlemail.com on 24 Sep 2010 at 10:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

yay for middle-ground-ism :-D

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 26 Sep 2010 at 6:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is great program! Hard to find similar as google tends to be pretty 
protective as you can see. Could you just program out bulk download for google 
maps and keep bulk download for all others? Might get google off your back and 
avoid a lot of hassle. I want to keep this around and see it continue to be 
improved! Keep up good work. 

Original comment by jw...@operamail.com on 11 Oct 2010 at 7:30

[GoogleCodeExporter]

some further points

– non-cooperation is an appropriate way of handling harmful behavior; the 
alternative involves bearing some responsibility for the adverse consequences 
— think of what you'll say to your grandchildren when they say 'what did you 
do during the war of the proprietary internet?' :-)

– A restriction of gmapcatcher would lead reasonably directly to a fork of 
the project, such as 'freemapcatcher' :-D while it's far less probable that 
people would fork to make a more restricted project

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 12 Oct 2010 at 7:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi everyone,

First, thanks for your feedback and comments on this issue.  I've had the 
opportunity to try and clarify our reasons for our Terms of service with the 
lead developer, and wanted to provide the following summary (we try to keep our 
terms as short and readable as possible, but it's still a couple pages):

 - The overall reasons for our restrictions on tile access are many, including the fact some of our content providers we license data from require we allow access only via our published API's
 -  We do not allow any download/offline caching of tiles, outside of standard browser caching that takes place when viewing tiles through the API.
 - I do not see any way your project goal (downloading tiles) could be compatible with our existing terms for tile access.

I am aware that a number of alternative tile providers have terms that are less 
restrictive than ours, and allow direct tile access,  Meanwhile, some providers 
(including us) limit access to tiles and other content only if you use the API 
directly.  

I realize there is a lot of interest in accessing the content directly, but I 
appreciate your efforts as developers of open source software to do your best 
to follow our terms.  

I also hope that despite the incompatibility with this particular project, you 
find our overall set of free services useful, and that you create other 
projects that can make use of them while still following our terms for 
accessing the content.

Thanks,

  -Josh

Original comment by jli...@google.com on 11 Feb 2011 at 7:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi All

Today is a very sad day; I just committed a change (see r1128) to remove GOOG 
from the map services menu, and also from the default in the config file.

Helder

Original comment by heldersepu on 13 Feb 2011 at 1:33

• Changed state: Started

Attachments:

• noGOOG.png

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The future is relatively free, however, as in new news, the US Geological 
Survey has made access to all sat images 100% free, as in Beer :-)

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/574813/

suggesting the possibility of some kind of 'app style' improvement to 
gmapcatcher, that for a subscription to cover the cost of cloud servers, would 
provide the sat images directly; overlay, say OSM data, then the result is 
freedom - as in speech - from the domineering stance of some of the googles of 
this world :-)

Original comment by Mark111...@gmail.com on 1 Apr 2011 at 10:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 274 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by heldersepu on 10 Jul 2011 at 4:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I repost my question here:

Google Map now allow users to download Maps for offline browsing.
Can we put Google Map back to gmapcatcher?

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/07/google-maps-for-android-now-lets-you-download-m
aps-for-offline-viewing-hallelujah/

Original comment by mrdu...@gmail.com on 10 Jul 2011 at 5:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Although the Android Application does now let you pre-cache a set of data, we 
still do not offer this ability through our API.  But we realize it is a 
popular feature request, but the same reasons noted in comment #30 above still 
apply.

Original comment by jli...@google.com on 12 Jul 2011 at 8:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 383 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by heldersepu on 11 Jul 2013 at 11:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 383 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by heldersepu on 14 Jul 2013 at 2:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 383 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by heldersepu on 15 Jul 2013 at 2:38

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Issue 383 has been merged into this issue.

Original comment by heldersepu on 16 Jul 2013 at 8:12