Greetings!
As an information technologies company we are developing apps for municipalities usage. Through their demands, we developed Google Street View app in ArcMap Javascript API. Let me explain what it does:
You can view the screenshot of our widget. My question is: Do you think that it violates the terms of Google Street View?
If non-Google map usage is the problem (OSM), does it prevent the violation of terms of Google if we use Google Map as basemap?
I hope Mr. rscheitlin sees and answers this question cause he developed a widget once but gave up distributing it due to the facts of terms of Google Street View.
Thank you in advance,
Bugra
Solved! Go to Solution.
Bugra,
This looks like it may work then, because you are using a Google Map and you are interacting with the Google Map and just syncing your esri map with the google maps extent. I would suggest that you even place a marker on the esri map to show the street view POV (point of view). Nice workaround for the TOS issue.
Bugra,
This looks like it may work then, because you are using a Google Map and you are interacting with the Google Map and just syncing your esri map with the google maps extent. I would suggest that you even place a marker on the esri map to show the street view POV (point of view). Nice workaround for the TOS issue.
Mr. Robert,
Actually we do have a rotatable marker but i didn't interact with the map while capturing a screenshot. Then i understand that we don't have to worry about TOS issue.
Thank you very much for your answer Mr. Robert!
Burga,
It is my opinion that it would conform to Google Maps API TOS. Your best bet is to run this part the Google Maps API team
Has anyone recently communicated with a human at Google? A few weeks ago I tried emailing maps-api-usage-questions@.., but as expected they won't answer. We don't want to make assumptions about their Terms of Service. Here is what I asked:
When it comes to dynamically displaying Street View using a lat/lon obtained from a map click inside an ESRI (or any non-Google) web application, will Google allow either of the following scenarios?
1. Opening a new window containing only the street view by using this URL structure: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=&layer=c&cbll=32.7211048,-97.1346032
No API is used for development in this case. If for some reason this is prohibited, what about dynamically generating a link inside my application containing the lat/lon parameters, so the user would just need to click on the link to open a new window?
2. Opening a new window containing both a Google Map and a Street View container, similar to this: http://www.geocodezip.com/v3_Streetview_lookAtC.html?location=40.720032,-73.988354&fov=90&heading=23...
If needed, I could automatically zoom to the location (in the 2D map), and then perhaps use the center spot in the Google Map as a determinant for loading the Street View right beside it.
Based on Google's restrictions, I don't see a specific reference to using direct URLs (rather than the Maps Javascript API + key) in a new window. And while it does specify a Google Map must be the source of the Street View location, there's nothing stating how the Google Map is used - manually or programmatically - to ultimately obtain the location.
Hi Andy,
I have the same situation, have you ever got the answers regarding Google Street View TOS?
Regards
Hi Jelena,
No, I have not heard back. When it comes to these sorts of things, Google clearly has higher priorities ($$$) than taking time out to help an individual understand if they are abiding by the rules. I'm sure if they really want to know they can somehow trace all references made to their pages and start with the highest violators! For organizations who don't want to proceed without safely confirming, it may be a lost cause. I wish there was more to say. Maybe someone else will jump in here....
Hi Andy,
thank you for replying. I really hope that we will find the answer eventually...
Regards,
Jelena
Did you ever hear anything back from Google about this use case? We are running into same issues/questions.
Hi Mike. We don't have anything new on this matter. Maybe someone else has something new...