Google Maps API pricing changes

[deeenes]

Me too I hope more paths and other details from OpenStreetMap will be available in the map view. However what I noticed that the elevation and gradient plots became completely unrealistic. I know this also was provided by Google, and was actually pretty accurate. Now I would say it's unusable. How do you get the elevation data now?

On the other hand, I really like OSM and other free, community based initiatives, and from certain aspect I find it positive you moved from dependence on a big corporate to integration more into OSM ecosystem. It seems the transition was an epic quick effort and I hope with time the elevation issue will be sorted out. I would definitely consider supporting the project if I see progress this way, however now it became not quite usable for my purposes. Nevertheless would be nice to hear your plans, and keep up the great work!

[Colin]

Hi deeenes,

The data for the elevation and gradient now comes from mapbox.com. We did try OpenElevation but their data really was very poor in comparison.
I've personally found that the elevation profiles produced with the mapbox data match very closely with those previously produce by the Google API.

Others have mentioned that the total ascent and descent stats have increased significantly. I think this may be an artefact of summing the fine variation (noise) in elevation data. I'll look into adding some smoothing to sort this out.

If you have any particular route that you feel isn't showing a realist elevation, I'll be happy to look into it - just post the route URL here.

[Colin]

To those disappointed by the change in the available map options - we are too :-(

Staying with Google would have meant being charged several times the sites total earnings for the privilege of using the Google Maps API - just not an option.

The switch to Leaflet was a lot of work, but it does mean we are now free to use maps from any standard format map tile provider.
We are still looking for options with better rural track details and good quality satellite imaging. We'd be happy to consider other providers, if you know of any good options.

[suzie.withers]

Hi Colin

Thanks for the info on this. I'm not sure if you've answered the question (forgive me if you have, but if so, I guess I haven't understood the answer), but a few people have asked about the Open Street Map view that enables us to plot routes on paths in rural locations and urban parks and why this view no longer exists when I thought it was open source and not Google?

Can we still use Open Street Map with Mapometer? If so, how?

Thanks

[Colin]

@suzie.withers

OpenStreetMap isn't a particular map, its a mapping project.
The data from this project can used to produced differently rendered sets of maps tiles with different data included and styled in different ways.

Previously, we'd sourced OSM tiles directly from open street map. Currently, the roadmap tiles we're using are based on OSM data, but are from a third party provider and use a different rendering ('OSM Bright' rather than 'Mapnik').

I hadn't noticed any difference in the inclusion of foot path data in the new rendering. Could you give me an example route map where you're missing paths so that I can do a side-by-side comparison?

[ocean_blue]

Hi Colin,

Thank you for the good work on Mapometer. It was unfortunate that Google changed their policy. I was one of the happy users using Mapometer to plan my cycling and hiking trips.

To follow on your reply to suzie, may I add this: Most foot paths are on both OSM web (https://www.openstreetmap.org) and the Mapometer map. However, the mapometer map seems to be not as updated as the OSM web. I did a quick check on the map around my area and found out that one appears to be disjointed on Mapometer map. Please see location 1.41357, 103.89905. Missing foot path on Mapometer:  In comparsion, foot path on OSM:

There could be more.

However, my bigger problem is that in some cases, "Draw Route" will refuse to plot a track using the foot path. It will use the nearest road instead. To give an example, using OSM web, I was able to plot a route from one end of a bridge (1.39573,103.92259) to the other end of the bridge (1.39700,103.92154) using the bridge itself. See However, with Mapometer, it will not use the bridge but the road instead, creating a big detour.  See

Previously, Mapometer has no such issue. Perhaps it is due to the navigation software?

[Colin]

@ocean_blue

Thanks for the examples.

As you say, the first example seems to be an issue of recency of updates. OSM update their global database on a weekly basis.
Both the map tiles and the directions service we now use are based on this OSM database. Generating a global tile set from this database is a major undertaking and most providers won't update weekly. I'm not sure how often our providers re-generates their tile sets.

The directions software our provider use is called Valhalla. It actually has a lot more options in how routes are selected than Google's service. However, its hard to provide a simple interface to this that works well in all situations. For instance in cycle mode in will enforce one way streets and won't allow walking down roads with no sidewalk. These kind of features can lead to unexpected routes being returned sometimes. We'll be tweaking the settings we use over time to try to improve the results.

The routing is also based on a tile set generated from the database and so is also affected by when the tiles were last updated.

At the moment the best recourse when you get unexpected results is to turn off 'follow roads' and manually click-through the problematic section.

[Sussexwolf]

I'm very happy with mapometer and the new maps in my area of the UK show more paths in the local forest. I use openstreetmap and have registered as an editor so that I can correct any minor errors that I find.

I have tried similar mapping software and find mapOmeter the best.

[Harry Ziman]

I really like Mapometer and am a regular user. The decision to limit the types of maps to subscribers will probably drive me away. For example, my house cannot be located on the normal map and needs the satellite view. Some of the paths we follow also need the satellite view to find them. My use is to track routes horse riding and the mobile version is useful (but not the best) - I track distance and height gain, and the latter no longer works for me. My main use is the desktop version. Sadly, my thoughts are to switch to using one of the equestrian apps and foregoing the ability to draw and manage on the desktop. I will stick it out a little longer so see if functionality is restored as I want to continue using Mapometer if I can.

[Colin]

I really like Mapometer and am a regular user. The decision to limit the types of maps to subscribers will probably drive me away. For example, my house cannot be located on the normal map and needs the satellite view. Some of the paths we follow also need the satellite view to find them. My use is to track routes horse riding and the mobile version is useful (but not the best) - I track distance and height gain, and the latter no longer works for me. My main use is the desktop version. Sadly, my thoughts are to switch to using one of the equestrian apps and foregoing the ability to draw and manage on the desktop. I will stick it out a little longer so see if functionality is restored as I want to continue using Mapometer if I can.

Hi Harry,

Its unfortunate, but since we now have to pay for all of our map tiles, we've had to add this restriction. Some of the types of maps are more expensive than others - particularly the satellite imagery.
We just can't afford to have high numbers of satellite map loads from people who are using the site for free.

Unless I can find a much cheaper source for satellite imagery, this functionality won't be returning for non-subscribing users.

Is £8 per year really a too much to pay for a service you like using?

Colin