Who Draws the Lines? The Case for Decentralized Map Making

It’s only natural that we expect maps to be accurate, yet the question remains: Do they consistently provide the most authentic depiction of reality?

I’m an analyst focusing on the emerging sector of decentralized physical infrastructure within CoinDesk’s latest initiative, DePIN Vertical. In this op-ed, I delve into the intricacies of this developing industry.

No, not always. And this poses a significant issue.

Contemporary maps serve multiple purposes: they function as data repositories, navigation systems, and marketing tools. In their digital form, maps go beyond providing static representations of the world. Our dependence on maps for obtaining everyday information has significantly increased. For instance, over 1 billion individuals utilize Google Maps monthly, while approximately 60% of American drivers engage with a GPS service at least once a week (as per UnitedTires research). Alongside on-demand deliveries, taxi services, and searches for locations such as eateries, supermarkets, and charging stations, maps significantly influence our lives on a frequent basis.

As a crypto investor delving into the world of decentralized finance and blockchain mapping projects, I ponder over the question: “Who holds the reins in determining what data gets incorporated into these intricate digital landscapes, and what information remains untouched?”

As a researcher exploring the role of mapmakers in shaping our perception of the world, I believe it’s essential to examine their motivations and influences on our daily lives as maps become increasingly prominent. Mapmakers wield significant power in decision-making processes due to their control over accurate geographic data. However, access to this information remains limited for many, creating a need for decentralized and open-source mapping projects. These initiatives aim to challenge the siloed and gatekept mapping ecosystem by providing accessible and inclusive alternatives.

Modern maps: An imperfect system

Currently, a small number of map-making businesses hold the primary role in producing and updating most commonly used digital mapping systems.

Every map represents a unique perspective shaped by its makers. The placement of points and delineation of borders might appear simple, yet they entail numerous decisions and built-in prejudices.

As a researcher studying the impact of maps on user behavior, I’ve discovered that maps have a significant influence on how people make decisions. Map creators hold a great deal of power in this regard, as they can deliberately highlight or obscure certain features to shape outcomes. For instance, a restaurant might pay for a feature that makes their establishment appear as the top recommendation on a map, regardless of objective measures like distance or star ratings. In such cases, the map functions within a sponsorship-driven ecosystem where businesses that invest in visibility dominate navigation and traffic, not necessarily due to merit alone.

Transforming a map into a source of income doesn’t make it inherently harmful, but it comes with substantial implications when the majority of free-to-use map services heavily rely on ad revenue for their business model. However, map providers need financial resources to maintain up-to-date data and advancements in mapping technology. Consequently, these maps often face a dilemma between prioritizing corporate recommendations and ensuring data precision and timeliness.

As a business analyst, I’ve observed that on the B2B side, companies heavily rely on proprietary information to maintain their competitive edge. Consequently, publicly available maps often fall short in terms of dynamism, up-to-date information, and depth of data compared to what they could offer.

Gatekeeping innovation

In the realm of publicly accessible map platforms, many users rely on a limited number of free mapping services. These providers are often large corporations that have established dominance in internet search and exploration. Although they frequently introduce updates and innovative features, their primary objectives and driving forces may not always align with the needs and desires of the public.

A former Senior UX Researcher at Google Maps, Kasey Klimes, discussed the reason behind Google Maps not incorporating “scenic” or “safe” navigation options in a recent post that has gained significant attention. In the article, Klimes clarifies Google’s internal reasoning, prompting numerous critics to question the company’s intentions for neglecting these frequently demanded features.

Corrupted sources

Cartographers’ choices in creating maps are shaped by their knowledge and accessible data. Modern maps are a composite of trustworthy information from various origins. Map providers can compare sources to enhance precision, but the process remains fallible.

As a dedicated researcher delving into the realm of geospatial data, I can’t help but acknowledge the formidable challenges we encounter in ensuring the authenticity and precision of information provided by mapping companies. Disputes over territorial boundaries, censorship imposed by various entities, unintentional errors such as missing details or extra additions, and malicious actors seeking financial or political advantages are just a few obstacles that pose threats to the integrity of our data.

For example:

As a researcher, I acknowledge that most mapping companies strive for accuracy and transparency. However, it’s essential to recognize the potential influence of external sources and authorities on map entities. Mark Monmonier wisely pointed out in his book “How to Lie with Maps,” that while many map users accept minor inaccuracies, maps can also deceive on a larger scale.

Relying too heavily on a sole information source can lead to dangerous consequences. With technology advancing and compromised datasets increasingly able to penetrate mapping services, businesses are seeking reliable methods to authenticate data in large quantities.

OpenStreetMap: A step towards openness

As a researcher studying the history of open-source mapping solutions, I’d express it this way: In 2004, I discovered that OpenStreetMap (OSM) presented an innovative approach to addressing map-making bias. OSM harnessed the power of worldwide volunteers who collaboratively mapped geospatial data for public use and referencing.

As a crypto investor with an interest in the mapping sector, I’ve noticed that OpenStreetMap (OSM) has been making great strides forward. Hivemapper and numerous other cartography agencies are strongly backing and utilizing the OSM database to establish robust foundations for mapping projects. Being an open-source initiative, OSM doesn’t harbor any apparent biases, instead, it empowers the entire network to decide on what constitutes truth and accuracy.

Although it has its challenges, the OpenStreetMap platform primarily relies on outdated or donated imagery from major corporations due to the absence of incentives or compensation for independent contributors. Despite being open for edits and safeguards against data manipulation, OSM finds it difficult to compete with contemporary mapping initiatives in terms of keeping up-to-date.

Numerous inaccuracies and biases manage to sneak past the defenses, keeping map creators on their toes in a never-ending whack-a-mole-like challenge. Although this issue is less susceptible to individual manipulation, it’s not entirely unbeatable. The conflict over cartographic data persists, and even independent users can occasionally tamper with map details, as demonstrated by the enigmatic user editing OpenStreetMap for China’s benefit.

In an ideal scenario, map lines would be drawn by everyone, not just cartographers. With equal access to up-to-date information, we’d break free from the constraints of segregated and controlled mapping platforms, crafting a comprehensive, innovative, and tailor-made map experience.

It all amounts to data.

Eliminating middlemen

As a researcher, I’ve been working with the OpenStreetMap (OSM) model for openness, which is a commendable initiative to create and share geospatial data freely. However, I’ve encountered some challenges in implementing it effectively. One of the significant hurdles is ensuring unbiased data collection and validation while maintaining a reliable network of sources.

As a researcher exploring the potential of advanced mapping systems, I pondered over an intriguing question: what if the human element were significantly reduced in the equation? Could we design and build a self-regulating mapping network that unfailingly presented truthful information? Previously, such an idea may have seemed far-fetched. However, with the advent of blockchain technology, this once elusive concept is no longer just a theoretical construct. Instead, it’s a viable possibility worth investigating further.

As a crypto investor, I’d describe a blockchain as my reliable and secure digital ledger that meticulously records every transaction made in the network. In simpler terms, it’s like an online journal that keeps track of all contributions, ensuring accuracy and transparency.

Projects such as Hivemapper utilize blockchain technology to incentivize a vast army of map data providers. Unlike traditional intermediaries, these contributors do not manipulate the data nor introduce bias. Instead, contributions are gathered through specialized hardware and intelligent software designed specifically for unbiased, raw data acquisition.

In Hivemapper’s system, contributors attach their dashcams to record and authenticate street-level images, earning them cryptocurrency as compensation. The human role is kept to a minimum after the camera installation, allowing high-definition footage from the dashcams to primarily identify and mark map features using advanced imaging technology.

Every day, countless individuals travel on roads around the world, which is why we’re dedicated to mapping and examining these very roads. Conveniently, we have access to map-ready fleets. By equipping drivers with specialized dashcams that function as data collection devices, Hivemapper efficiently gathers map information on a massive scale.

The system is impartial and validates visual information from various drivers, making it more engaging with regional incentives. Eliminating the need for human intervention, trust becomes a calculable aspect within the network, subject to continuous evaluation. Suspect data introduced by malicious actors can be detected when other drivers retrace routes and authenticate or refute previous map contributors. Consistent contributors who supply accurate data are consistently rewarded, while those compromising the data pool face exclusion from both the network and the incentive program.

Customizing the experience

People have a tendency to manipulate data to suit their preferred results, which is an inherent issue we can’t easily resolve. However, by ensuring that everyone has equal access to up-to-date, precise, and reasonably priced map data, we can challenge the existing mapping monopolies.

Map elements based on factual information form the objective foundation of mapping. Components such as street names, road conditions, and sign positions seldom elicit disputes. By starting with reliable geospatial data, we build a trustworthy base for creating maps.

Starting from that point, users have the ability to add extra information for navigation purposes, marking points of interest, catering to business requirements, and so on. By utilizing a decentralized system, we can automate aspects related to map updates. Furthermore, open APIs enable developers to continuously enhance features and develop custom filters. Ultimately, the public can access various marketplaces for maps and make their own choices based on their specific needs.

Disclaimer: The perspectives conveyed in this article are my own and may not align with those held by CoinDesk, its management, or other affiliates.