New Apple iOS6 Mapping

[vdeane]

One of the reasons why those release slower is because you have to pay to upgrade them and the features are used as selling points.  Upgrading iOS costs nothing; all you have to do is click a button in iTunes to download the update and you're done.  The features don't need to be used as leverage to get you to take out your wallet, so the releases become less major.

At least it's not the overkill six month releases that linux distros often use, or the two month releases used by Firefox and Chrome for what should be nothing more than a patch to the existing release.

[Scott5114]

I have become accustomed to the six month release cycle that Linux distros use, and I find that I prefer it over the Windows release cycle, since because the releases are more incremental, less stuff tends to break in between them. OS upgrades are no longer really a big deal to me, certainly not anything like the memories I had of clearing my schedule for a weekend to upgrade from 98SE to XP. (More frequent bug fixes and security updates are another benefit of a faster release cycle; this is why Firefox and Chrome update so frequently–they want the users to get security fixes as quickly as possible.)

[vdeane]

True, though the fast pace can lead to bugs in and of itself.  I think a yearly cycle would work well there.  As for bugs and security fixes, that's theoretically what patches are for, though they seem to be a dying thing in the browser world.

In the case of Firefox, it leads to more frequent add-on breakage because now the developers don't care one bit about add-on comparability when changing code.  I don't think Firefox has released a single patch in over a year now; they just roll bug/security fixes into the next release, because quite frankly, there isn't much else for them to put in a release.

I also like rolling releases like Gentoo uses.  We might want to move to that model - since version number increments no longer denote major releases, why not just get rid of them?

[vtk]

It's been said that the new maps incorporate some OpenStreetMap data (unless it's some other OSM).  Doesn't OSM's license require the combined data set to then be also offered with a similar license, or does ODbL not have a Share-Alike requirement?

[Central Avenue]

The state route shields are great...but the US shield is hideous. How hard is it to just download the real shield off Wikipedia?

The real shield could serve as a starting point, but I've found actual shield designs don't always shrink well to map sizes...different applications require differences in design, etc.

I agree that the one they've chosen is ugly, though.

[rickmastfan67]

It's been said that the new maps incorporate some OpenStreetMap data (unless it's some other OSM).  Doesn't OSM's license require the combined data set to then be also offered with a similar license, or does ODbL not have a Share-Alike requirement?

OSM isn't ODbL yet, and it will not be till they run the redaction bot.

[vtk]

It's been said that the new maps incorporate some OpenStreetMap data (unless it's some other OSM).  Doesn't OSM's license require the combined data set to then be also offered with a similar license, or does ODbL not have a Share-Alike requirement?

OSM isn't ODbL yet, and it will not be till they run the redaction bot.

Okay, I was mistaken on that point. After doing a bit of reading, it sounds like ODbL will have a similar share-alike requirement as the current Creative Commons license.  Either way, a dataset that incorporates data from OSM must also be shared, and I don't think Apple/TomTom is meeting that requirement.