Thank you both. That might indeed add a very different twist to what I
read into Google's information. As long as Google viewpoint is in
sync, that's great. If you will forgive me, I will again clarify the
process, as this is somewhat of a fork in the road regarding whether
my current (and future) development will incorporate Google maps in
any way, shape or form.

1) There may or may not be a charge for the base app (yet to be
decided). Most likely, there will be a base charge of a couple of
bucks.

2) The user enters their place of birth, either by means of an address
string that will be sent to Google for geocoding, or by means of
selecting the place of birth from a map(s). There is NO charge to the
user for entering this data or for subsequently obtaining the lat/lon
of that location. The use of the map is free.

3) This lat/lon information, however, is then used by the app to
create a "natal chart" that is typically about 20 printed pages in
length. There is NO CHARGE for this chart.

4) The user has then the option of obtaining a substantially expanded
chart, at a nominal fee. This version will typically be well over 100
printed pages in length.

5) Again, there is no charge for the use of the maps in either case.

If I read both your definitions correctly, then I believe I am OK with
the free version. Please advise. I do have other ways of obtaining lat/
lon for the paid version, if I need to. I have an internal database of
lat/lon for world cities with over 300,000 records. The Google map
implementation is just a bit slicker and the search is more efficient,
as it seems to work better in those situations where an address has
been entered in a weird way.

I thank you again for your clarifications... greatly appreciated!

Jack


On Mar 8, 11:31 am, Michael Geary <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Michael Geary <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Imagine your app worked like this:
>
> >    1. Look up your birthplace on a Google map for free
> >    2. Pay to find out more
>
> > Then you could use the free API.
>
> Aw rats. I might have this wrong. I'm sure this use of the *map* would be
> OK, but if the "pay to find out more" step involves the use of the
> *geocoding results* obtained in step 1, that might be a problem for the free
> API. I'm not really sure on this one.
>
> -Mike

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.

Reply via email to