[wsfii-discuss] Europe's GeoData belongs to the public?
john wilson
johnresearch at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 14 15:40:35 UTC 2006
Proboscis' recent work on "public authoring and civil society in the
wireless city" has covered public geodata issues:
http://urbantapestries.net/weblog/archives/000181.html
November 01, 2006
IPPR Public Innovation Report
We contributed a case study on the Ordnance Survey (in relation to the
questions of intellectual property and the public domain) to the IPPR's
Public Innovation: intellectual property in a digital age which was
published on Monday.
In addition to the case study (pp 55-57) is a section in the conclusions (p
85):
Opening up public sector information would present dramatic
opportunities for entrepreneurship in the UK, without unduly benefiting
overseas competitors. We support a recommendation related to us by Giles
Lane from creative studio Proboscis that the functions of OS be split into
two different components: one part being responsible for maintaining the
National Geographic Database (NGD) and providing access to it on a ‘cost of
reproduction’ basis to all who wish to use it, and another part that
continues the OS’s legacy of innovation and product development, but that
derives no commercial or competitive advantage from controlling the NGD.
The full proposal is below:
Accessing Public Geodata
Giles Lane, May 2006
Despite the Ordnance Survey's (OS) successes in widening provision for small
groups such as academics and schoolchildren, the OS has not been able to
create mechanisms that widen access to its core geodata for other non-
governmental public uses. With its strong focus on cost recovery and
development of new revenue models this does seem to be a conflict of
interest. The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) is reported to
agree that there is 'substance to to complaints from commercial mapping
firms that OS has been "obstructive and slow" in licensing its data.' (The
Guardian, 23/3/06). Whilst the OS disputes the findings of the OPSI, it also
disputes the conclusion of Comptroller and Auditor General, National Audit
Office regarding how it values the National Geographic Database (NGD) which
it 'owns':
"In my opinion: in view of the effect of the decision not to capitalise
the data held in Ordnance Survey's geospatial databases as a tangible fixed
asset in accordance with Financial Reporting Standard 15, the financial
statements do not give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of
Ordnance Survey at 31 March 2005 or of its surplus, total recognised gains
and losses and cash flows for the year then ended"
(source: OS Annual Report 2004-05, 13 June 2005)
This is not the first time the Auditor General has qualified the OS's
accounts, in fact he has done so every year since it acquired Trading Fund
status. The issue of valuing the NGD as an asset is complicated and open to
different interpretations as to whether the OS's or the Auditor General's
opinions offer the best value for taxpayers. However, it does highlight an
increasing sense of frustration where a government department operates as an
effective self-regulating monopoly controlling access to a public asset
funded for over two hundred years by the taxpayer.
A Modest Proposal
One potential solution for the licensing impasse would be to separate the
functions of the OS into two different components: one part being
responsible for maintaining the National Geographic Database and providing
access to it on a 'cost of reproduction' basis to all who wish to use it,
and another part which continues the OS's legacy of innovation and product
development but which derives no commercial or competitive advantage from
controlling the NGD.
A possible model for this kind of separation of inheritance and service
provision is the recent regulation of BT which separated the core national
telephone network (which BT inherited on privatisation and has maintained
and upgraded constantly since) from its own retail and business services
provision. This separation was enforced to create a more fair and level
playing field in the local loop unbundling of telecom services (through the
new entity, Openreach) which had failed to gain momentum whilst BT retained
control of the network and the exchanges and was competing with other
companies wishing to install their own equipment and offer competitive
services.
If the National Geographic Database were be accessible to anyone – including
the OS itself – at no more than the cost of reproduction of the data, then
the monopoly which the OS has inherited as a trading fund would be dissolved
and new entrants would be just as able to deliver innovative new uses of GIS
as the OS and other incumbents are today.
>From: "john wilson" <johnresearch at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information
>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>To: wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] Europe's GeoData belongs to the public?
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:01:32 +0000
>
>so who is campaigning on open geodata- in the UK? - where have advocates
>made in-roads on this issue internationally?
>
>through platforms such as flickr, geodata is fast becoming both an easy to
>use and an expected feature
>
>the arguments for "open geodata" as a common public good etc, are pretty
>much in parallel to the advocacy of "open spectrum"
>
>John
>http://openspectrum.org.uk/
>
>
>>From: "Malcolm Matson" <cityman at city.co.uk>
>>Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information
>>Infrastructure<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>>To: "Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information
>>Infrastructure"<wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>>Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] Europe's GeoData belongs to the public?
>>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:22:37 +0000
>>
>>Hi Tracy,
>>As I said, I am not expert on this - but I thought that under the UK
>>Freedom
>>of Information Act, any charge for information provided HAS to be related
>>to
>>the 'cost' of retirving it and sending it and NOT to recover any costs
>>related to its origination? Maybe I am wrong.
>>Thanks for drawing this to our attention. Hope to see Jim F. drive
>>across
>>the border from India today to join us!
>>Malcolm
>>
>>On 14/11/06, Tracey P. Lauriault <tlauriau at magma.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>Cheers Malcom!
>>>
>>>The issue is in the UK is that you can get the data but at a very high
>>>cost and with very restrictive use. Making the tax payer, the citizen
>>>pay twice and keeping the data out of the hands of social researchers,
>>>ngo's who want to do a poverty analysis, and regular citizens who want
>>>to study their neighbourhoods. Also there are restrictions in
>>>publishing what you have bought as well.
>>>
>>>Do well at the panel in Pakistan!
>>>
>>>t
>>>
>>>
>>>Malcolm Matson wrote:
>>> > Hi Tracy - it's not my speciality but has anyone looked at this
>>> > important issue from the standpoint of the UK 'Freedom of Information
>>> > Act 2000 <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm>'? Might
>>> > be worth it.
>>> > Regards (from Pakistan where I am with Vickram and colleagues)
>>> >
>>> > Malcolm
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > THE *OPLAN* FOUNDATION
>>> >
>>> > *Malcolm J Matson*
>>> >
>>> > 77 Andrewes House, London EC2Y 8AY, UK
>>> > tel. +44(0) 20 7638 2344 : mob. +44(0) 7977-407845
>>> > malcolm.matson at oplan.org <mailto:malcolm.matson at oplan.org>
>>> >
>>> > ...............................................................
>>> >
>>> > Privileged or confidential information may be contained in this
>>> > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or
>>> > responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not
>>> > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should
>>> > destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
>>> > Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to
>>> > internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and
>>> > other information in this message that do not relate to the official
>>> > business of OPLAN Foundation shall be understood as neither given nor
>>> > endorsed by it.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 14/11/06, *Tracey P. Lauriault* <tlauriau at magma.ca
>>> > <mailto:tlauriau at magma.ca>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > A few people at WSFII Dharamsala asked me about access to
>>> > Geographic Data (e.g. maps, census, environment data & maps, radar
>>> > images, satellite images, air photos etc.) for their countries and
>>> > cities in Europe.
>>> >
>>> > These data are hard to access for a number of reasons and I would
>>> > like to point you to an important what is happening in Europe that
>>> > will eventually determine how all European Member Nations address
>>> > issues of access and cost of these important civic data sets. The
>>> > UK position on full cost recovery is the worst and it is
>>> > influencing others. If you want *open and free - as in no cost -
>>> > access to the GeoData your national governments collect with your
>>> > tax dollars, and you do not want to pay for it twice - i recommend
>>> > you act on the following:*
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Open GeoData - http://publicgeodata.org/
>>> >
>>> > On 23 January 2006, the Council of European Union has formally
>>> > adopted a common position on the Inspire Directive, which
>>> > stipulates that *Geographic Data collected by National Mapping
>>> > Agencies all over Europe should be owned by such agencies and
>>> > not by the Public*
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *The Open Knowledge Foundation Open Data Manifesto -
>>> > http://okfn.org/geo/manifesto.php*
>>> >
>>> > Geodata is a public good. Open access to it, under a 'Commons'
>>> > (ShareAlike) license, is the best way to see its full benefits
>>> > realized by industry and citizens. At the same time such an
>>> > arrangement, by requiring users to redistribute updates and
>>> > improvements to the data, promises to deliver more and better
>>> > data for less.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > *Free Our Data : The Blog* -
>>>http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/
>>> >
>>> > Free Our Data is the campaign started by Guardian Technology
>>> > <http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/> beginning with the
>>> > article Give us back our crown jewels
>>> > <
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Technology/weekly/story/0,,1726229,00.html>.
>>> > The argument is simple: by charging for data that is collected
>>> > (sometimes with the force of law) by government-owned bodies,
>>> > the government is holding back the growth in public and
>>> > private use of that data which could benefit the UK overall.
>>> > That is, a short-term "gain" hides a much bigger loss in terms
>>> > of entrepreneurship, jobs created and competitive edge lost.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
>>> > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org <mailto:wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
>>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > wsfii-discuss mailing list
>>> > wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>>>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>>>
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>wsfii-discuss mailing list
>wsfii-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss
More information about the wsfii-discuss
mailing list