[OKFN-CH] Antwort der Schweizerischen Post - Re: Referenz #GV1087957: Ihre Anfrage

[Simon Leinen]

Thanks for sharing, and for your efforts to make this data more widely
accessible.  The response you got is probably quite representative for
the ambiguous relationship between the holders of data sets ("them" -
to simplify the argument) and the open data movement ("us").

There is one particular point that I think our community should focus on:

>> Die vorgesehene Applikation steht in direkter Konkurrenz zu
>> unsere eigene Webseite
>
> OpenStreetMap ist nicht vorgesehen, sondern real existent. Und ist keine
> Applikation. - Interessant zu erfahren ist zudem, dass die
> Schweizerische Post OpenStreetMap asl Konkurrenz ansieht.

I totally agree with the last sentence of your response, although I'm
not really surprised.

The main job and reason for existence of the Post is to allow people
and companies to send messages and goods to others in a convenient,
trustworthy and efficient manner.  (I haven't checked the mission
statement but I guess they would basically agree with me.)

In an ideal world, whatever decisions "they" make should ultimately be
guided by that mission.  So what they should *really* think about is
"would our presence on OpenStreetMap (in combination with other
information such as our own web site) make it easier or otherwise more
efficient for customers to use our principal services?", and if so,
does this added value justify the costs - which are probably low for
"them" in this case.

Unfortunately, most organizations don't think that way.  And the parts
of the organizations who deal with such requests are those who are
measured by web site visit numbers, not by general happiness of the
public with the service.

So what you get is this: The tail wagging the dog.  "They" refuse to
make life easier for customers in order to protect the brand,
investments in public relations etc.

This is the point that needs to be driven home - on the political
level (for public data) and on the business level.

(For the other points, I can understand "their" reluctance more
easily.  Of course, to "them", open data is a priori more work, more
costs etc.  "They" also want to do a good job keeping "their" data
clean.  So it is somewhat justified when "they" are worried what
happens when they give out copies to a third party which then makes
them available to other parties (in this case the general public),
maybe even let those other parties contribute their own data to
them... How can "they" can still retain some level of (quality)
control such as keeping the distributed copy in sync with "their own"
master copy.  Your responses are good, and I hope they will dissipate
some of "their" worries.  Anyway, good luck!)
-- 
Simon.