Approved HTTP interface to get 256x256 tiles?

50 views
Skip to first unread message

BA

unread,
Feb 6, 2013, 4:27:24 PM2/6/13
to google-maps...@googlegroups.com
I'm working with a Java interface that builds slippy maps out of 256 pixel tiles through HTTP requests.  I've found the interface below which works fine:


However in Google maps terms it suggests that it is not approved to use interfaces which are not documented, and I find no documentation of this interface anywhere.  The only documented interfaces I can find are:
1) Static maps API, which is not useful for a slippy map at all
2) JavaScript API, which does not seem practical for retrieving arbitrary 256x256 tiles, and moreover even if I did choose to do it that way, I think that attribution images would be present in every tile which would look ridiculous.  And of course, the JS API uses this "undocumented" mt0 interface from above, under the hood.

Am I out of luck completely?

Barry Hunter

unread,
Feb 6, 2013, 4:28:09 PM2/6/13
to google-maps...@googlegroups.com
>
> Am I out of luck completely?
>

Yes.

BA

unread,
Feb 7, 2013, 4:23:29 AM2/7/13
to google-maps...@googlegroups.com
It says here that it is ok to use the maps API in a non-web application.  Clearly the JavaScript API would not work in a non-web application, so which interface are we intended to use?

Chris Broadfoot

unread,
Feb 7, 2013, 5:00:27 AM2/7/13
to google-maps...@googlegroups.com
There are two options:
* Static Maps API
* Wrapped JavaScript API

The Static Maps API approach is better supported, an embedded browser will not be fully supported by the JavaScript API. Your best bet would be an embedded WebKit, though.

Cheers
Chris

BA

unread,
Feb 9, 2013, 12:38:07 AM2/9/13
to google-maps...@googlegroups.com
I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak for asking this, and probably won't get any kind of constructive answer, but is there any good reason why someone should have to embed an entire webkit in their application just so they can use a JavaScript API which does nothing more than query an underlying HTTP API, rather then just using the HTTP API directly?  With it being that much hassle, I'll just stick with other simpler solutions.  I doubt Google will shed any tears over losing me as an amateur developer utilizing their data, but I still have to wonder why it has to be so difficult.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages