http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:54:32 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1646 Sarah Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:03:55 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1646 To chime in on the Metro economics motivation issue (even though I do see you think it's a matter of time) There's a general benefit to using Google Transit for tourist income. I'm much more likely to visit on a weekend trip, or add a city to a long travel tour if I know I can get around. Yes, I know it won't be perfect, but having the easy ability to figure out if the place I'm thinking of staying is reasonable to get to w/o knowing city streets? Fanntastic. Cheers, Sarah [2 cents from a Mainer who found your entry while trying to figure out if she could get Portland's Metro on Google Transit without the Transit Authority, because there isn't enough drive for them to do it themselves yet.] To chime in on the Metro economics motivation issue (even though I do see you think it’s a matter of time)
There’s a general benefit to using Google Transit for tourist income.
I’m much more likely to visit on a weekend trip, or add a city to a long travel tour if I know I can get around. Yes, I know it won’t be perfect, but having the easy ability to figure out if the place I’m thinking of staying is reasonable to get to w/o knowing city streets? Fanntastic.
Cheers,
Sarah
[2 cents from a Mainer who found your entry while trying to figure out if she could get Portland's Metro on Google Transit without the Transit Authority, because there isn't enough drive for them to do it themselves yet.] ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1645 Tom Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:26:47 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1645 Thanks, Matt -- I've remove the slashes, acknowledging what's been obvious for a few days now. As for Metro's motivation w/r/t getting more riders -- perhaps I should've tried to state this in terms of the speed of the decision, rather than its ultimate outcome. I agree that ultimately WMATA should find a way to integrate with Google, because that's what's in the public's best interest. But in the short term there's nothing wrong with the people running this project trying to make sure that it's successful within the terms of the project, rather than in terms of Metro's overall mission. That may seem a bit provincial, but it's an inevitable (and I would argue necessary) feature of how projects get done within bureaucracies. If Google Transit still hasn't come to DC in 6 months, I'll be much more willing to raise a fuss. Thanks, Matt — I’ve remove the slashes, acknowledging what’s been obvious for a few days now.
As for Metro’s motivation w/r/t getting more riders — perhaps I should’ve tried to state this in terms of the speed of the decision, rather than its ultimate outcome. I agree that ultimately WMATA should find a way to integrate with Google, because that’s what’s in the public’s best interest. But in the short term there’s nothing wrong with the people running this project trying to make sure that it’s successful within the terms of the project, rather than in terms of Metro’s overall mission. That may seem a bit provincial, but it’s an inevitable (and I would argue necessary) feature of how projects get done within bureaucracies. If Google Transit still hasn’t come to DC in 6 months, I’ll be much more willing to raise a fuss. ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1644 Matt Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:32:39 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1644 About the slashies Tom: you've got coverage at Techdirt, so it's kinda hard to not let this hit the masses at this point, google or not. I agree that not having it do so hopefully prevents press from putting an idiotic spin on things. I do find it interesting that the issue is asking for money here. Tom, as much as I get the idea that sometimes it could cost more money to have riders you seem to acknowledge yourself that more riders is the end goal here. Wouldn't that sometimes figure be quite overridden in concept of that? Isn't it a bit short term to say the equivalent to "well, if we add x riders and not Y (Greater than X), it costs us money, but if we add Z riders (greater than y) and not Y, it costs us less money" and basically refute that? If the mass transit system is intended to work (and through subsidies,etc) and ends up getting enough to require additional transport, isn't that a good thing? You know, more investment, more business, more jobs, more tax for the gov't etc? There just seems to be missing logic in merely applying a blanket statement that basically is "We can't handle more riders right now, so we shouldn't" (end of negotiations). About the slashies Tom: you’ve got coverage at Techdirt, so it’s kinda hard to not let this hit the masses at this point, google or not. I agree that not having it do so hopefully prevents press from putting an idiotic spin on things.
I do find it interesting that the issue is asking for money here.
Tom, as much as I get the idea that sometimes it could cost more money to have riders you seem to acknowledge yourself that more riders is the end goal here. Wouldn’t that sometimes figure be quite overridden in concept of that?
Isn’t it a bit short term to say the equivalent to “well, if we add x riders and not Y (Greater than X), it costs us money, but if we add Z riders (greater than y) and not Y, it costs us less money” and basically refute that?
If the mass transit system is intended to work (and through subsidies,etc) and ends up getting enough to require additional transport, isn’t that a good thing?
You know, more investment, more business, more jobs, more tax for the gov’t etc?
There just seems to be missing logic in merely applying a blanket statement that basically is “We can’t handle more riders right now, so we shouldn’t” (end of negotiations). ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1643 Tom Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:05:37 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1643 Interesting. Thanks for the additional context, James. Count me convinced. Interesting. Thanks for the additional context, James. Count me convinced. ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1642 James Grimmelmann Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:54:52 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1642 I agree with you on the signalling value of a CC license. Even if no permission is needed, CC licenses have come to be associated with a spirit of generosity and collaboration. And now back to the copyright question. The rule is that while facts aren't copyrightable, their "selection, coordination, and arrangement" may be. The choice of database structure ("arrangement") and the choice of which facts to put in into it ("selection") can be copyrighted, but ONLY if those choices are original. The Supreme Court held, in the famous <i>Feist</i> case, that putting a phone book in alphabetical order isn't original, and neither is choosing to include everyone with phone service from a particular company. Both of those choices are unoriginal. The same is true, here. Perhaps WMATA's internal databases contain lots more information, surprising fields, and editorial comments. But the files they'd be exposing to the world as part of the Google Transit program are in a standardized format (which therefore isn't original to WMATA) and contain a standardized set of data (times and destinations of trains and buses operated by WMATA). Thus, while some databases can potentially support copyright claims in some settings, the files at issue here couldn't. I agree with you on the signalling value of a CC license. Even if no permission is needed, CC licenses have come to be associated with a spirit of generosity and collaboration.
And now back to the copyright question. The rule is that while facts aren’t copyrightable, their “selection, coordination, and arrangement” may be. The choice of database structure (”arrangement”) and the choice of which facts to put in into it (”selection”) can be copyrighted, but ONLY if those choices are original. The Supreme Court held, in the famous Feist case, that putting a phone book in alphabetical order isn’t original, and neither is choosing to include everyone with phone service from a particular company. Both of those choices are unoriginal.
The same is true, here. Perhaps WMATA’s internal databases contain lots more information, surprising fields, and editorial comments. But the files they’d be exposing to the world as part of the Google Transit program are in a standardized format (which therefore isn’t original to WMATA) and contain a standardized set of data (times and destinations of trains and buses operated by WMATA). Thus, while some databases can potentially support copyright claims in some settings, the files at issue here couldn’t. ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1641 Peter Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:25:39 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1641 this whole 'google must pay' thing is a bit odd to me. they're offering a public service for....the public, and they're doing it for free. it is up to us, the public, to take our data and put it into gtfs - that is, force our publicly-accountable institutions, namely WMATA, to do it. we're paying for that mess - they need to do, plain and simple. for the record, i've used google transit in at least two towns, and it's fantastic, and would never use anything else. google transit far surpasses any and every system i've used from any other public agency at any time in my life, in any country i've lived. it's not perfect, but let's be honest, they don't have much competition when it comes to online routing. :) this whole ‘google must pay’ thing is a bit odd to me. they’re offering a public service for….the public, and they’re doing it for free. it is up to us, the public, to take our data and put it into gtfs – that is, force our publicly-accountable institutions, namely WMATA, to do it. we’re paying for that mess – they need to do, plain and simple.
for the record, i’ve used google transit in at least two towns, and it’s fantastic, and would never use anything else. google transit far surpasses any and every system i’ve used from any other public agency at any time in my life, in any country i’ve lived. it’s not perfect, but let’s be honest, they don’t have much competition when it comes to online routing.
:) ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1640 Tom Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:44:33 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1640 Facts aren't copyrightable, but databases are. It's a bit of a strange distinction, and I won't claim to be able to be able to answer questions on the finer point of this arrangement, but that's how things work in this lovely intellectual property system of ours. Other systems -- BART for example -- publish their data but make it subject to license terms. Generally these are just things that you're already legally obligated to do (like not using their logo), but it's helpful to have their policies all in one place. If nothing else, a CC license would make WMATA's intentions clear. Whether or not the noncommercial clause is enforceable, I couldn't say -- I think the CC license hasn't undergone that many test cases overall, much less ones where public data is specifically involved. Facts aren’t copyrightable, but databases are. It’s a bit of a strange distinction, and I won’t claim to be able to be able to answer questions on the finer point of this arrangement, but that’s how things work in this lovely intellectual property system of ours. Other systems — BART for example — publish their data but make it subject to license terms. Generally these are just things that you’re already legally obligated to do (like not using their logo), but it’s helpful to have their policies all in one place.
If nothing else, a CC license would make WMATA’s intentions clear. Whether or not the noncommercial clause is enforceable, I couldn’t say — I think the CC license hasn’t undergone that many test cases overall, much less ones where public data is specifically involved. ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1639 James Grimmelmann Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:38:54 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1639 <i>WMATA should put the GTFS dataset online under a Creative Commons noncommercial license,</i> I agree wholeheartedly, except that the Creative Commons license would be redundant and unenforceable. Information about what time the buses run where is uncopyrightable. It's just a bunch of facts, and facts are never subject to copyright. That data is born in the public domain, and it stays there. Anyone can use it, for any purpose. And that's exactly how it should be. WMATA should put the GTFS dataset online under a Creative Commons noncommercial license,
I agree wholeheartedly, except that the Creative Commons license would be redundant and unenforceable. Information about what time the buses run where is uncopyrightable. It’s just a bunch of facts, and facts are never subject to copyright. That data is born in the public domain, and it stays there. Anyone can use it, for any purpose. And that’s exactly how it should be. ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1638 Tom Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:32:24 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1638 Peter: sure, more integration is desirable. But these are small systems compared to WMATA. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The same applies to the proposal to use an alternative to GTFS. GTFS has gained marketshare because it was the first format proposed and adopted. That's not always a great reason to use a format, but in this case Google seems to have done a pretty good job. GTFS is well-documented, <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/gtfs-changes/msg/d4f99230d44d2c93" rel="nofollow">open</a>, and the associated tools are released under the Apache license. If it has shortcomings it may be appropriate to work on an alternate format, but right now you'd have to present a case for why the advantages of doing so would outweigh the costs in time and fragmentation of a currently unified standard. I think that's a hard case to make (at the moment, anyway). Peter: sure, more integration is desirable. But these are small systems compared to WMATA. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The same applies to the proposal to use an alternative to GTFS. GTFS has gained marketshare because it was the first format proposed and adopted. That’s not always a great reason to use a format, but in this case Google seems to have done a pretty good job. GTFS is well-documented, open, and the associated tools are released under the Apache license. If it has shortcomings it may be appropriate to work on an alternate format, but right now you’d have to present a case for why the advantages of doing so would outweigh the costs in time and fragmentation of a currently unified standard. I think that’s a hard case to make (at the moment, anyway). ]]> http://www.manifestdensity.net/2008/12/16/metro-and-google/comment-page-1/#comment-1637 Hugo Pottisch Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:28:38 +0000 http://127.0.0.1:8888/?p=730#comment-1637 The WMATA is obviously not privatized or lives in a pre- or post-internet universe? I reckon that restaurants should prohibit guides writing about them - at the very least they should prohibit guides to print their address or opening hours. I mean - why on earth does Sony allow Amazon to sell their products when their own web site has so much more information? Google's core competency is finding or at least searching for information. The WMATA is more about providing public transport? Sounds like a perfect match for everybody: the metro - google - and us all? People living in DC should protest the WMATA's decision? The WMATA is obviously not privatized or lives in a pre- or post-internet universe? I reckon that restaurants should prohibit guides writing about them – at the very least they should prohibit guides to print their address or opening hours. I mean – why on earth does Sony allow Amazon to sell their products when their own web site has so much more information?
Google’s core competency is finding or at least searching for information. The WMATA is more about providing public transport? Sounds like a perfect match for everybody: the metro – google – and us all?
People living in DC should protest the WMATA’s decision? ]]>