Government
Google Transit: What's in Metro's terms?
A couple of days ago, we discussed how Metro and Google haven't reached agreement on incorporating schedule data into the Google Transit service. Almost immediately, a few commenters wrote back that Metro has already provided the data, so isn't it up to Google now?
Image from wmata.com.
Let's look at Metro's license. I am not a lawyer, but I can read English and am familiar with some legal concepts. If there are any attorneys out there that would like to correct or amplify this discussion, please feel free to chime in.
From Metro's perspective, they've formatted the data properly and released it under a license, so what is Google waiting for? The problem is that their terms are too draconian. Metro won't let you use their trademarks at all, and even the term "Metro" is a registered trademark according to the system maps. They also reserve the right to stop providing the data without notice, and to start charging for the use of the data at any time. Furthermore, Metro reserves the right to modify or revoke the agreement at any time.
They also require that developers indemnify Metro against any suit resulting from the data. That means that if someone sues Metro over something involving a third-party application, Metro can force that developer to pay all of the court costs and any settlement. The indemnification even applies against lawsuits involving poor quality data, and the data is indeed poor. When I downloaded and used an error checker against the feed, there were thousands of data errors.
These terms boil down to, "If you can download the data, then you can use it for the moment, but if it disappears or we decide we want some money, too bad." It makes it very risky to spend much time developing an app if Metro can remove the data or put it behind a paywall at any time. It's also risky to release that app if Metro could force you to pay for lawsuits.
Metro appears still interested in possibly charging for the data. In the recently-approved budget, Metro staff included a $500,000 item to hire a consultant for "Intellectual Property Valuation" service. A Metro spokesperson said that they were interested in figuring out what valuable intellectual property they have and what it might be worth in the market. They have not put this out for official proposal yet. Combined with the statement in the license agreement and previous statements that they were pursuing "revenue sharing" with Google, it's likely that Metro is looking at offering its GTFS feed only to paying developers. It's possible they are only thinking about other intellectual property, but not many other possibilities come to mind, especially not that could be worth anywhere near enough to justify $500,000 to analyze.
Metro could alter their agreement in order to make it more palatable to developers, including Google. Most importantly, they could remove the indemnity clause. Metro already disclaims any liability for the data. The other change would be to remove the potential for using the GTFS feed as a revenue source. Like bus schedules and train maps, Metro should be interested in having their routing and schedule information as widely published as possible to promote ridership. Many other transit agencies have taken this approach, and the leaders in the industry, Portland's TriMet and San Francisco's BART, are pleased with the results. Developers there have produced new applications that the transit agency either wouldn't have thought of, or wouldn't have had time to produce.
Google uses a lot of publicly available information in its online tools. If Metro were to open up their license, it's possible that Google would accept freely available information and be able to provide the service.
Coming up: What's in Google's agreement, and whether Metro should consider just accepting it.
 | Michael Perkins blogs about Metro operations and fares, performance parking, and any other government and economics information he finds on the Web. He lives with his wife and two children in Arlington, Virginia.    |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Parklets give every block a little park
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
by Dan Miller on Jul 24, 2009 11:54 am • link • report
As for an example case, imagine the following: Metro's hypothetically bad data says that there will be a bus waiting to pick up passengers from the last train at night in a bad area of the city, to take them to their homes. What if the bus actually stopped running 30 minutes prior, but the data hadn't been updated? Now, someone who had taken that last train, in reliance on the data, is stuck there in a dangerous area of the city where cabs aren't easy to find. The person who relied on the bad data starts to walk home, but is mugged on the sidewalk just off of WMATA property. Whether that would rise to a level of negligence or recklessness on the part of WMATA is an open question. It could be "frivolous," but on the basis of these facts alone, I don't know that it would be thrown out immediately -- there might be a real jury question there.
by Joey on Jul 24, 2009 12:07 pm • link • report
by Omari on Jul 24, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report
by Matt Glazewski on Jul 24, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report
by Ken Archer on Jul 24, 2009 12:35 pm • link • report
Those who own a diaper genie know what I'm talking about.
by Michael Perkins on Jul 24, 2009 1:17 pm • link • report
It would be hard to tell who went to WMATA's website, read the license and said, "no, thanks".
by Michael Perkins on Jul 24, 2009 1:19 pm • link • report
Why are you doing Google's bidding? I think they are capable of negotiating contracts on their own. IF they feel that this data will make thier products more compelling they will agree to terms.
by Tom on Jul 24, 2009 2:17 pm • link • report
Michael is doing the bidding of WMATA users who feel WMATA, as a public service agency and not a private company, isn't serving the public well when it comes to its dealings with Google.
Ken
by Ken Archer on Jul 24, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report
Regardless, the point of metro isn't to make money directly, so they should be encouraging as many people as possible to ride. And, making it easier for users to use the system helps accomplish that goal.
by Pedro on Jul 24, 2009 2:59 pm • link • report
by Pedro on Jul 24, 2009 3:02 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Jul 24, 2009 3:38 pm • link • report
http://www.commuterpage.com/art/system_map.cfm
They even have Metro's data, or at least enough of it to be fairly useful.
by Dan J. on Jul 24, 2009 5:16 pm • link • report
by Christian on Jul 24, 2009 6:18 pm • link • report
WMATA thinks its big enough to dictate the terms. It has data that, in theory, Google wants (really, users of Google's service want).
Google thinks its big enough that it should dictate the terms. It is providing a service that WMATA users want.
I find Google's presentation of WMATA's data more useful than WMATA's presentation of the same data. So, I'm of the mind that WMATA should bend on this one.
But I do see the other side of the argument.
BTW, in looks like WMATA moved the data without notice. After agreeing to the terms and passing the CAPTCHA:
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
Maybe they're testing clause #3 :)
by gka on Jul 24, 2009 8:23 pm • link • report
I've used Google Transit a few times in other places. In my opinion, it's not that great. For the D.C. area, I think WMATA's Web site does an excellent job of providing trip planning.
But GGW's crusade on this is wrong on several levels. Here are a couple. First, Google is a for-profit Web site. They're not posting this information as a public service; they're building Google Transit because they can make money off of it, either now or in the future. Why should we expect WMATA to donate its data to Google so Google can make money off of it while drawing users, and therefore revenue, away from Metro's Web site? Beyond that, WMATA -- along with every other transit agency in America -- doesn't exist to make money for Google.
Second, if you're fine with Google being the end-all of information in this country, well, that's your problem. But for one organization to be "the Source" for so much information is not good for a democratic society.
Frankly, I trust WMATA more than I trust Google. After all, I elect some of the people who sit on Metro's board. Metro's sole reason for existing is to serve me, the public. Google's sole reason for existing is to make money. Am I the only one who doesn't fail to see the issue here? Oh, wait, I think the people at WMATA see it, too.
by Dustin on Jul 25, 2009 8:57 am • link • report
Google's done a lot of good things, but it's sometimes too quick to assume that other people's intellectual property wants to be free when it can profit off doing so--look at the raging Google Books wars. As far as I can tell, it's acting petulant that WMATA expects compensation for work done.
Until and unless Google puts money on the table, I for one would rather see WMATA put its limited resources towards things like switch repair and bus replacement.
by Betsy-the-muffin on Jul 25, 2009 9:30 am • link • report
by Christian on Jul 25, 2009 9:38 am • link • report
Yes the schedule data has value, but the bigger picture is that it has much more value when made available for free to developers in virtue of the boost in ridership that results.
by Ken Archer on Jul 25, 2009 2:40 pm • link • report
by Squalish on Jul 25, 2009 2:45 pm • link • report
For starters, the 98 bus "crew" for years had a system where two buses would be on the route but only one would be on the road at any one time while the other driver smoked, ate at Mcdonalds, or tried to pick up women.
Anyone on the 42 could see how much faster it would be for the bus to pass under the Dupont Circle but until this year they steadfastedly refuse to do this, feeling that a 20 foot walk for transferees (versus a 100 foot walk) to the Metro station was worth making the other bus riders wait another five minutes as the bus snaked around a crowded circle.
Most of the board of directors (e.g. Jim Graham) can't even bother riding a bus or taking the metro. They have no idea of its problems. I'd much rather have google working on a problem for me than Jim Graham.
by S. Sam on Jul 25, 2009 5:29 pm • link • report
I'm not advocating for Google to be the sole recipient of WMATA's GTFS data. I'm just saying that there's a really good service out there (I disagree with you that WMATA's trip planner is better than Google's) that I would like to see offered, and it's not anything technical that's preventing it, it's a legal dispute that in my opinion is unnecessary.
Frankly, I'm not sure what your concern is for the risk of making sure Google offers the Google Transit service. WMATA is offering the data to anyone, so it's not like agreeing with Google will somehow lock down the data and not provide it to anyone else. Other transit agencies actually tried that (giving the data to Google only) and various freedom of information requests ended up establishing the precedent that the data, once developed, needs to be made available to everyone.
WMATA's in the unique case that they have developed the data but haven't partnered with Google, but they did develop the data. Usually it's the other way around or the data isn't developed at all.
by Michael Perkins on Jul 26, 2009 12:05 am • link • report
by Wes on Jul 27, 2009 2:43 am • link • report
by Squalish on Jul 27, 2009 5:32 am • link • report
WMATA is not fully subsidized, and it needs to charge money for services to make up that budget gap. Right now, it's not charging enough money for services to do so. I really, really don't see the problem with it exploring new revenue streams--fares are kinda reaching their upper limit, and our local governments only have so much money to throw its way right now.
I agree that in happy shiny fairy world WMATA would be fully funded, and wouldn't have to choose between charging developers and replacing ancient crash-bait switch systems. But it does. The WMATA Trip Planner is adequate, though not great. I'd rather have an adequate internets tool that tells me how to get around a functional transit system than a theoretically-great** internets tool that tells me how I could get around a nonfunctional transit system if it were working.
Obviously, the data is stored in a manner that lets some developers (WMATA's) use it usefully. If Google (or any other developer) wants the data in a different form, then they should ask WMATA for a raw dump and see what they can do to transform it. Demanding that the data be made available in a different, Google-proprietary, nonstandard format--and that it be made available and *maintained* for free--smacks of entitlement. This sense of entitlement to other people's intellectual property has characterized Google for the past few years, which makes me rather disinclined to give it the benefit of the doubt in this instance.
* If WMATA is losing money with every new passenger, increasing ridership is not so much in its narrow interests. This is sad, but them's the breaks.
** I have to wonder how many of the people here who are all "yay, Google Transit!" have actually used it. I have, in other cities with better transit systems. It is barely functional.
by Betsy-the-muffin on Jul 27, 2009 9:48 am • link • report
by Christian on Jul 27, 2009 10:04 am • link • report
Primarily-automated tools wrote the files from WMATA's internal databases - once they're able to export to GTFS, the work is pretty much done, they can repeat the process a million times. Optional parts of the spec, like shapes.txt, which would require some significant work on their part(but only once, not per-export), havn't been implemented.
by Squalish on Jul 27, 2009 3:33 pm • link • report
1. The federal government can't hold intellectual property in its documents or data.
2. Data (facts) can't be copyrighted anyway.
3. That said, the provision of services (e.g. serving up data, live) can have licensing terms put upon it.
4. But WMATA may not even need the indemnification clauses of those licenses if it enjoys sovereign immunity as a federal entity (technically, it's established by Congress but a compact among DC, VA, and MD).
I suspect that WMATA's lawyers are copying license terms from the private sector instead of re-thinking them to achieve its goals and objectives by exploiting the unique strengths and advantages they enjoy as a public entity.
And I don't think this should be framed as a Google vs. WMATA issue; I think this should be framed as a public goods vs. proprietary information issue, one in which WMATA as a matter of public policy if not law should see as being in its own best interest to make data freely available rather than encumbering them with license terms if not license fees.
by Anderkoo on Jul 27, 2009 4:13 pm • link • report
WMATA *is* partially subsidized, and the difference between system costs and revenues is provided by local jurisdictions. The local jurisdictions have to decide what they are willing to fund and what they will require more revenues.
Right now, it's not charging enough money for services to do so. I really, really don't see the problem with it exploring new revenue streams--fares are kinda reaching their upper limit, and our local governments only have so much money to throw its way right now.
How do you know fares are reaching their upper limit? Metrobus fares are among the lowest in the country, and even with very high fares, the Metrorail trains are crowded to overcrowded. Are you saying that charging a nickel more would cause the system to go empty? What do you base this assumption on?
Obviously, the data is stored in a manner that lets some developers (WMATA's) use it usefully. If Google (or any other developer) wants the data in a different form, then they should ask WMATA for a raw dump and see what they can do to transform it.
WMATA stores its data internally in TRAPEZE or another proprietary software package. WMATA's software vendor provides a plug-in that allows the data to be exported directly into the Google format (I know this to be true), which is fully documented, open to the public, human readable, and not proprietary. Before Google Transit, there was not an open, human-readable format, so Google Transit has become the de facto standard for exporting data so that people can develop software based on exported scheduling data. Google and other developers do not need WMATA to output a different data form than what is already produce by WMATA and made available under restrictive licensing terms.
Demanding that the data be made available in a different, Google-proprietary, nonstandard format--and that it be made available and *maintained* for free--smacks of entitlement.
Again, the format is the de facto standard and may have been developed by Google, but it is available to all and is documented so that you can use it easily. WMATA has already produced such data and is stating that they will maintain it for the forseeable future (at least until they decide not to, at their discretion).
If WMATA is losing money with every new passenger, increasing ridership is not so much in its narrow interests. This is sad, but them's the breaks.
WMATA does *not* lose money with every passenger. As I said before in this thread, WMATA only loses money with additional passengers if they have to ramp up service to accomodate them.
It's better to think about it this way: WMATA spends a *lot* of money (about $1.3B) running the service, and they get about 60% of it back from the riders (90% of it back through fares for Metrorail and around 35% for Metrobus). If something changes that causes the trains and buses to run more full, then they get back a little more of that percentage.
WMATA pays NextBus thousands of dollars to operate the NextBus tracking system. Why would WMATA do that? Additional riders cost them money! Because the riders demanded that kind of service, and it's good for WMATA to do things that the makes the riders better off. Google Transit is a service that's free for WMATA and would benefit the riders. Maybe not as much as NextBus, but then again the price is much lower.
WMATA would love to increase ridership during off-peak times. Since they're already running as many trains as they can during rush-hour, they probably wouldn't mind more ridership then, either. It would just make it less comfortable for their riders.
** I have to wonder how many of the people here who are all "yay, Google Transit!" have actually used it. I have, in other cities with better transit systems. It is barely functional.
And I have been reading the "google transit" twitter search for a while and I have read many people raving about how much they love the service and how it's helped them take a bus instead of a taxi. You may not like the interface, but I've used it and I like it. It would be especially helpful for tourists, especially tourists who visit from cities that have Google Transit.
To each their own, but at this point, partnering with Google costs WMATA nothing (the data's already developed) but could bring them more riders.
by Michael Perkins on Jul 28, 2009 2:21 pm • link • report
The reductio ad absurdum of your argument is that WMATA should also stop posting and publishing "free" schedules and system maps. They worked hard on those schedules, why should they give them away to anyone for free? It might discourage some riders, but that just saves money too, amiright?
Instead, they could have a 1-900 number to call to find out when the next bus was coming and where it was going, or a subscription-only website.
Presumably, this is also the ideal model for television networks. Why would they want to just tell you for free what programs are airing and when? Think of all the money TV Guide is stealing from them.
And of course, Google is obviously just a massive parasite. Don't even get me started. Why, going around and scanning other people's pages on the internet, indexing them and making them easily searchable! And all for profit. Really. Just outrageous. It ought to be illegal.
That's why I put my robots.txt file on lockdown mode, with a little note that they can index my pages if they want, but only if they cover all my legal costs if someone sues me, and I reserve the right to start charging them for the privilege at any time. No way am I going to let those leaches send any extra people to my website for free. No sir.
(Incidentally, I've also got a letter writing campaign on to Congress to stop the government from providing information for free. Why, right now you can go to the Library of Congress and find out all kinds of information about laws and bills, without paying a cent. And they even let those bastards from Google in! Many states do the same thing. Don't even talk to me about the capitalist sellouts at the National Weather Service!)
by jack lecou on Jul 28, 2009 6:54 pm • link • report
I have seen that argument made before. It would be a little more credible if at least one of the posts on this topic did not have "Google" in the headline. In fact, these posts have everything to do with Google. The GGW contributors like Google's service and they want WMATA to do whatever it takes to get the data listed with Google. Every post on this issue has been about Google Transit; not a single post has been about why a public agency should make this data available to anyone who wants it, regardless of whether it is Google or not.
This may seem a trivial point, but not everyone is starstruck by Google. Some people dislike Google. Making this into a Google issue is going to turn a lot of people off.
by Omari on Jul 28, 2009 8:14 pm • link • report
This actually happened. It only cost Accuweather's CEO $2000 for a two-day rush bill to ban the NWS from providing non-emergency information, in order to reverse progress of their slowly modernizing website. You can thank PA's own frothy mixture, who was targetted and found himself at the bottom of the Dem landslide in '06. PA-Sen 'Save My Career' Specter seems to have dropped into line as well.
The Bad Old Days - that's what we'll call the reign of movement conservatism once the GOP finds a productive ideology and the cable media withers away. A time we reach back into to find a hyperbole, and tell Hill rats spooky campfire stories about.*
* If we can still reference them - so much link rot in just four years!
by Squalish on Jul 29, 2009 2:38 am • link • report
As for the National Weather Service (and perhaps I'm a bit biased here since I work in meteorology), I see nothing wrong with providing meteorological information for free, especially since NWS's core mission (as with our own Navy meterology) is to save lives and protect property. And it doesn't hurt that the NWS has a benefit-cost ratio of 4.4.
It's also been argued that the freer access to weather data in the US has created more economic activity for information/database/weather risk management firms than the more restrictive/pay-for-info policies of the European Union. Which would be one good economic reason to "keep the status quo" here in the US regarding the NWS and weather info.
by Froggie on Jul 29, 2009 7:03 am • link • report
by Squalish on Jul 29, 2009 3:39 pm • link • report
The NWS bit was indeed a reference to AccuWeather's pet frothy mixture. I thought about throwing in something about Data.gov too...
by jack lecou on Jul 30, 2009 1:08 pm • link • report
I'm not sure I understand this. GGW is supposed to cater their arguments to the handful of people so irrational with Google hatred that they're blind to the fact that tens of thousands of people (potential WMATA customers!) DO like Google's service?
by jack lecou on Jul 30, 2009 1:37 pm • link • report
Have you studied the terms of the GTFS data use contracts written up by other cities? LA Metro basically makes their data available not just for Google Transit but also by any other developer. Pretty exciting stuff.
The DC metro trip planner is pretty, but their site still lacks some of the functionality that is just amazing on Google Maps, including the ability to see 3D views on the street and get the itinerary to geocode other destinations, like restaurants. Plus I'd have to try to navigate it on a smartphone's web browser, which is messier and more time consuming than going through a Google Maps iPhone or Blackberry application.
Great work!
by Sirinya on Aug 25, 2009 2:32 pm • link • report
by Michael Perkins on Aug 25, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report
Add a Comment