Ha, this is one of those times I feel silly for assuming everyone in the world understands a very specific term from an industry.
Threat intelligence (in the cyber security world) is information an organisation uses to understand the threats that have, will, or are currently targeting the organisation. This info is used to prepare, prevent, and identify cyber threats looking to compromise/exploit the organisation.
You're right, there will absolutely be teams, typically governments, where this will rule them out straight away. Same goes for very sensitive info.
However, there is a large market of intel sharing done via file sharing. As more businesses are mandated to share intel, they turn to GDocs, Dropbox, email, etc to share the intel.
Coming from the security industry, app sec is top of my mind (though such promises are never usually enough to convince decision makers). All-in-all your point is a good one, and it's something I still need to fully validated (maybe there is demand for an on-prem version?).
My guess is this has something to do with the Mapillary API updates. Whilst v3 is still active (shutdown is mid-Aug), all my OAuth applications we're nuked by Mapillary last month which caused me a similar (authentication) issue.
I think lockdowns have driven a high-level of interest in this type of technology, which is why I was surprised to see TC being shutdown.
We're trying to reproduce something similar on Map the Paths with guidebooks, a fusion of user contributed data + OSM data + Wikipedia data to augment virtual hikes, bicycle rides, etc. Maybe overlaps with OpenDocent?
It does sound like the kind of tour creation I was lacking. If you can download your tours in KML, you could walk them in real life with OpenDocent.
(I also implemented support for an ESRI ArcGIS format that did a similar thing. I found that ESRI has a similar "here's a guided tour" feature, but only because I happened to notice that my city offered it as a walking tour of historical markers.)
Fusing the Wikipedia and OSM data is very clever. I picked Google Maps as the map provider, for no especially good reason. My next quarantine project used OSM, and it would be easy to adapt.
Amazing. I am ashamed to say, but I was somewhat ignorant to issues of accessibility, and not just for those in wheelchairs.
A partially sighted friend asked me; "do you think I'd be able to walk that trail?" Despite it being somewhat technical, I didn't fully grasp his limitations. Long story short, it was a bit of a disaster when we tried it together.
We're in the middle of working on projects using panoramic imagery + computer vision + OSM to grade UK trails and their accessibility. The idea being show, don't tell.
I'm going to send an email via your contact form. I would really appreciate the opportunity to ask you a few questions.
It gets hard quick to answer these questions because each disability is unique. I once knew a woman get out of her wheelchair and walk up 3 stairs. She needed help to make that walk but she was able to do it (don't tell her doctor) . Others could not do that walk at all.
Even beyond being unique, disabilities are usually designated with cliffs rather than a gradient. People with an ambulatory disability are lumped in as "can walk with cane", "can walk with walker", or "cannot walk, must use wheelchair" ignoring the fact that some people exist on boundaries, or might oscillate between two depending on what they're doing or how they're feeling.
It seems like it would be nice to have a better classification system for the challenges a particular terrain poses. While having videos to see what the trail looks like is definitely a step up, it seems like a pain in the ass to have to watch someone walk it (and it would ruin a bit of the wonder for me, personally). I wonder if it's possible to condense the terrain down to a series of "potentially problematic features". I'm not an expert in accessibility, so I don't know what exactly one would flag, but things that come to mind would be rough terrain (inaccessible by typical wheelchair, accessible by ruggedized wheelchair), rough terrain (inaccessible by any wheelchair), non-smooth terrain (debris on trail could trip someone, accessible by any wheelchair), gradient in excess of X%, whether the trail is shared with bicyclists, etc.
I do worry about the data the operator would have access to, though. And even if we assume the operator is above reproach, I would worry that hackers would get access to the data. It's not something that I would want to host personally, just because of the risk of causing harm if the data were to be stolen.
A term I've used is "ambulatory wheelchair user" - there are lots of us!
I think it's more important to have the information available. I might not go to a place with a step at the entrance by myself but if I have people with me I can decide that I'll risk it.
I am sure there are more stable/accurate ways to do this with scraping but the WBM approach suited my requirements.