Towards Map 3.0: the Consensus Map
The Value of Digital Location
Location — like time, constitutes the meta data of our world. Map, a wholistic representation of locations, empowers any human or machine (e.g. self-driving cars) to search the world with spacial visiblity (static) and navigate the world with spacital mobility (dynamic).
“Mobility is the fundamental essence of intelligence…[ ]. If you want to move, you must memorize and generalize.”
~ Dr Qi Lu, ex Baidu COO, CES 2017 Keynote
Spacial visibility and mobility are tightly coupled with following key values that constitute the Map Value Stack:
- Map Data — digitized physical space
- Map Function — use of Map Data under a static or dynamic setting (e.g. nearby search or real-time routing)
- Map Trace — trace of Map Function usage (e.g. location trajectory or search history)
One who has governance over the Map Value Stack has the governance over spacial visibility and mobility, and thus the Governance over Digital Location (GoDL). The transition of GoDL from map giant to map community unveils the latent progression path of the map industry, which is towards decentralization.
From Centralized to Decentralized Governance
The map industry is constantly challenged by the objective nature of map data, which is highly distributed and fast changing. Futhermore, with the growing dependency on digital location came the subjective demand for greater personal privacy, as amplified by the recent digital privacy leak scandals. The objective and subjective demands together catalyzed the transition of GoDL towards decentralization. We envision a community-centric model as the inevitable future of all maps.
Map intrinsically tends to be decentralized, due to the objective and subjective conditions.
With that thought, let us walk through a brief history of maps.
Map 1.0, the Digital Map
Modern map companies like Google digitized the world. Digital maps are made interactive — we can now search for a location, pinpoint our position, optimize our route and use turn-by-turn navigation. The digital version of the world not only better serves the purpose of a traditional paper map, but also allows us to build complex location-based services. A fine example is Pokemon GO, making maps not only useful but also fun.
However, owner of digital maps also has unrestrained GoDL, allowing the Map Value Stack to be exploited for profits. The number of culprits extend far beyond Google, all wanting to become the definitive source of what’s on the ground. Centralized map companies like Google, TomTom and HERE have three major problems:
- Map Data is costly and inaccurate—As map data is intrinsically highly distributed, quality data becomes increasingly expensive, if not prohibitively, to maintain for centralized entities.
- Map Function is not impartial — Due to a lack of privacy and transparency, functions like location search can be manipulated easily without us knowing. Only seems far too lucrative for centralized entities to start displaying paid content, unless they are already doing so.
- Map Trace has no privacy — Sensitive information like user profile and usage trace can be used with sole discretion by service providers. Not simply for monitization but also self-justifiable causes. For example, to prove advertizement effectiveness to buyers by exploiting user privacy.
Lastly, even pseudo-anonymous data does not guarantee user privacy. As illustrated in the article below, location trace alone is enough to cross-reference your identity.
Map 1.0: Maps are flawed and non-transparent, yet with no better alternatives, users opt to “agree” on being monetized by map service providers
Map 2.0, the Open Map
“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.”
George Orwell, 1984
Open Map is not about the practical improvements of Digital Map, but the possibility of an open and transparent alternative. OpenStreetMap was initiated over 10 years ago on the basis of creating and distributing free geographic data for the world. It is considered as the Wikipedia of maps, providing decentralization to Map Data.
OpenStreetMap currently has over 4.3 million users, 1 million registered contributors, 3 million change-sets per day and 4.1 billion mapped nodes (locations). These statistics merely show the extent to which our society is craving for decentralization of Map Data. Not to mention, if the world is provided with an alternative of the Map Value Stack to its entirety, we may fairly anticipate a faster global adoption.
Open map is crowd built, actively, freely and frequently updated by community mappers. Map Data are produced to align local needs rather than global commercialization priorities, creating a more pervasive map of the world as this need exists everywhere. For example, the map of a rural Thailand cave will never be a priority for big organizations, but it will be critical in face of a rescue mission, as illustrated in a recent unfortunate event.
However, with all the promises, open map introduced a new set of problems. First is the lack of clear data governance, allowing data to be committed without proper review. Second, without fair incentives and penalties, the map is often targeted by vandalisers. Lastly, OpenStreetMap itself is no more than an inventory of crowd-sourced Map Data. We remain reliant on third party providers for map services, therefore rendering the governance of Map Function and Map Trace same as before. In short, Map 2.0’s downfall lies in the lack of governance, economic model and a comprehensive technology stack.
Despite the problems, many companies, including big names like Foursquare, SnapChat and Tesla, are still moving from Map 1.0 to Map 2.0.
Map 2.0: Open Map provided an incomplete solver to the problems of Map 1.0 by decentralizing the Map Data production
Map 3.0, the Consensus Map
A complete solution needs to encompass more than just open data, but also an integrated design of decentralized map technology, economy and community. The vision of Map 3.0 is to further transition GoDL towards the community and eventually reaching Autonomy of Digital Location. For the community to achieve autonomy, they must be able to reach a consensus on the governance process.
The Consensus Map is designed to have following breakthroughs:
- 10x in Map Data quality — An incentivized global map community with proper means of data production will help ensure the continuous production of quality Map Data.
- 10x in Map Function monetization model — functions are executed in a secure, transparent and verifable manner to assure impartial results to Map Function(s).
- 10x in Map Trace privacy preservation — Sensitive information are only stored upon user consent and will be protected by advanced Cryptography. Any use of sensitive information will be privacy-preserved.
To make it forceful and easy to remember, these together make a 1000x decentralized map economy through innovations on all layers of the Map Value Stack.
Map 3.0: A map built, shared and governed by the community. We trust in being fair, not clever.
Brief Summary and Beyond
The brief history of maps outlined the transition of Governance of Digital Location, from centralized to decentralized governance. The transition is inherently driven by both the objective requirement of highly distributed map data and the subjective requirement of user privacy protection.
In the next post, I will further elaborate on the concept of Autonomy over Digital Location and the design of Map 3.0. Stay tuned.
