No, this is not the issue, although it might have arrived as an automatic system update (although I disabled all automatic updates I could) at the same time.
Adding my 2 cents and support for Open Street Maps on iNat:
I also believe that iNat (especially now as a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization) is more aligned with the values of Open Street Maps than it is with Google.
They are similar open knowledge / open contributions projects, and using OSM would be a way to better insert iNat in the ecosystem.
While using Google Maps might not come with a bill, we don’t have any guarantees it will stay that way.
Also, the fact that Google Maps is not open and community-based is a BIG con.
iNaturalist is a very big platform and plays a role in the world. The tech we use has social impacts, and the power of increasing the ties with OSM is immense.
If people on iNat get constantly connected to OSM, we will eventually get better coverage of things that matter to us on OSM. That cannot happen on Google Maps. It is a long term better strategy, IMO.
No disagreements with this, but the simple fact is that using satellite imagery is impossible without closed-source platforms, and (unless similar agreements are made with other providers) is only possible through Google without iNaturalist being left with a massive massive bill.
As far as is technically possible I am hugely supportive of adding custom WTMS services as an option - not just OSM but also official orthomap and topographic basemaps that exist for much of the world. But doing so to the exclusion of satellite imagery would be an inexcusible step backwards in precision data entry for many (most?) users imo.
I have zero tech understanding but just to add my 0.02 USD; living/iNatting in a mountainous area, I can’t fathom not having contour lines available. As it is now, I primarily use the terrain maps and secondarily the satellite images. I don’t have any feelings (or understanding) how they’re provided, just as long as they’re available.
In addition to its various flaws, the ‘vanilla’ OpenStreetMap lacks contour lines (or even basic relief shading) indeed. A big no-no for serious mapping needs.
However, I have to disagree with @nrg800’s statement about “precision data entry”: Google’s “satellite” (aerial) imagery can be quite inaccurate (cf. this thread), using it for pinpointing obs is all but ‘precise’.
I would object strongly to removing the current google maps options, but don’t object to adding OSM options, though I will note that offensive vandalism has happened on OSM
I wasn’t aware of this big detail. Well, that is indeed a problem.
I guess the world should have an open version of satellite imagery; if I am going to have my house photographed by a metal piece in the sky, at least I’d like to be able to use it.
NASA is very supportive of open science, I assumed they would have some kind of public satellite file or something. The closest I could find is https://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ but I do not know the details.
Something to consider is the resolution of the available NASA WorldWind imagery compared to what Google offers. The Wikipedia: NASA WorldWind article offers a summary of WorldWind’s resolution. It varies among different parts of the world. Comparing this to Google’s imagery will take some additional investigation.
There’s no way any NASA product will come close to the resolution of google maps. Google maps largely uses aerial photography (from airplanes) and the resolution is necessarily much higher when you’re closer to the earth’s surface in an airplane compared to a low earth orbit satellite.
I too am very opposed to abandoning the current air photos unless there is a replacement of similar resolution. It would cause a lot of major issues if air photos weren’t still available or were of poor resolution.
