Geospatial
Providers using this tag (329)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Exemplar 4 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 21 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 57 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 68 Limited public surface area
Emerging 81 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 98 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (133)
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 7 Complete, well-documented, and agent-ready
Strong 10 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 26 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 50 Limited public surface area
Emerging 26 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 14 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (25)
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
Where this tag sits
329 providers carry this tag directly, and 475 counting the 4 narrower tags below and the 4 beneath them — 146 more to reach.
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 280 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 25.8 | 18.6 | +7.2 | 280 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 31.1 | 24.5 | +6.6 | 280 |
| Discoverability | 63.6 | 59.1 | +4.5 | 280 |
| Contract Governance | 12.7 | 9.7 | +3 | 280 |
| Operational Transparency | 15.2 | 13.2 | +2 | 280 |
| Access Clarity | 30.1 | 30 | +0.1 | 280 |
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) | 15% | 18% | -3 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 14% | 16% | -2 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 15% | 13% | +2 |
| Security | 97% | 99% | -2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 3% | 1% | +2 |
| Governance rules | 48% | 36% | +12 |
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 79
- 2 Esri 75
- 3 Google Maps Platform 73.6
- 4 SPOTIO 70.4
- 5 Trimble 65.9
- 6 Google Earth Engine REST 64.7
- 7 HOVER 64.6
- 8 Wherobots 64.4
- 9 Bentley Systems 63.3
- 10 Terabase Energy 63.3
- 1 emem 59.1
- 2 Terabase Energy 57.8
- 3 HERE 55.5
- 4 Mireye 52.5
- 5 Geocodio 50.5
- 6 Esri 50.1
- 7 Umbra 47.2
- 8 Landmark Information Group 47
- 9 Mapbox 45.8
- 10 Precisely APIs 45.1
Coverage caveat. 226 of 280 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 14 November 2026, across 41591 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.