News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mapping the World by mtmail on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @04:21PM (#8853383)
Love it. I hope they're able to publish the data. If only parts of it are generated using Google Maps data (see the 'create' feature in the screenshots) then they wouldn't because it's derived work.

Here is Flickr equivalent http://code.flickr.net/2008/10/30/the-shape-of-alpha/ (downloadable). Foursquare also does similar work.

[edit: sorry, I thought Airbnb was analyzing listing data to find the extends of neighborhoods. They don't seem to do that.]

Re:Mapping the World by meritt on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @05:20PM (#8853713)
Zillow provides free neighborhood creative-commons boundaries btw: http://www.zillow.com/howto/api/neighborhood-boundaries.htm
Re:Mapping the World by untog on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @06:29PM (#8854043)
Just using NYC, the Zillow data isn't perfect. But then, the larger point is that no-one even agrees what these different neighbourhoods are anyway, so it's very difficult to come up with a definitive data set.
Re:Mapping the World by toomuchtodo on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @05:30PM (#8853767)
Has this data made its way into OSM yet?
Re:Mapping the World by rmc on Thursday January 08, 2015 @04:14AM (#8855587)
It looks like it's distributed under a CC-BY-SA licence. OSM actually changed from CC-BY-SA licence to ODbL because it didn't look like that CC licence is suitable for geo databases like OSM ( read more: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_Th... ).

It would have to be relicenced (which I presume would not be a problem since ODbL is spiritually very similar to CC-BY-SA). But as maxerikson mentions it's not clear that it should be in OSM

Re:Mapping the World by maxerickson on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @05:45PM (#8853855)
Zillow would have to grant additional permission, OpenStreetMap only accepts data under rather liberal terms (because then changing the distribution license does not have to be a debacle).

"Fuzzy" boundaries are also sort of controversial (i.e., there are more than 0 people who will always speak against them).