Geospatial
Geospatialgeospatial
Providers using this tag (240)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 1 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 12 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 62 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 59 Limited public surface area
Emerging 56 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 49 Almost no public developer surface
Unrated 1 Not yet scored
APIs with this tag (140)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Exemplar 2 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 15 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 54 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 36 Limited public surface area
Emerging 22 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 11 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (31)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Geospatial” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 233 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Geospatial, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Developer Ergonomics | 31 | 23.4 | +7.6 | 233 |
| Contract Quality | 26.7 | 19.8 | +6.9 | 233 |
| Access Clarity | 31.8 | 26.5 | +5.3 | 233 |
| Discoverability | 65.5 | 61.2 | +4.3 | 233 |
| Operational Transparency | 16.6 | 14 | +2.6 | 233 |
| Contract Governance | 8.9 | 6.4 | +2.5 | 233 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 12% | 10% | +2 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 15% | 13% | +2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 15% | 11% | +4 |
| Security | 97% | 97% | 0 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 2% | +1 |
| Governance rules | 18% | 14% | +4 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 HERE 68.4
- 2 ESRI ArcGIS 65.8
- 3 SPOTIO 65.7
- 4 Tomorrow.io 65.1
- 5 Esri 64.9
- 6 Bentley Systems 62.7
- 7 First Street 59.1
- 8 Ordnance Survey 57.9
- 9 Terabase Energy 57.6
- 10 Atmospore Pollen Forecasts 56.9
- 1 Terabase Energy 58.9
- 2 ESRI ArcGIS 56
- 3 HERE 55.9
- 4 Esri 53
- 5 Mireye 47.8
- 6 Umbra 47.8
- 7 Landmark Information Group 45.9
- 8 Nexar 43
- 9 Bureau of Land Management 42.7
- 10 Sex Offenders API 40.5
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.