3 ms·

It is a difficult issue, as often government data can only compiled because money comes from its sale. A good comparison example is the UK's Ordnance Survey, w

It is a difficult issue, as often government data can only compiled because money comes from its sale. A good comparison example is the UK's Ordnance Survey, who now release all high-level data for free (http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/os-opendata.html http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/os-openda...) however the detailed data is only free to government institutions and their contractors. Private users of the detailed information pay alot of money for it (generally for site-location plans toward planning applications), which I assume is generally used for updating the database. This all works quite well generally, though arguments could be made from either side as to more or less information being publicly available. The key really is - if we want more government information to be free, we have to fund it more...

rdtsc 15y ago
But hasn't the public also been paying for low level data as well. Or is that provided by a 3rd party company who only licenses access to data in a strict and limited way (as a service) to the govt?
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  I looked it up. According to their own data (see link at the bottom of http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/02/ordnance-survey-business-model-costs-leak http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/02/ordnance-su... - also this link is well worth a read), about 1/4 (£24.6m) it is publicly funded (tax money), while the other 3/4 (£68.7m) is self-funded (revenue from sales). However, the government probably gain more than they pay in terms of being able to use the data freely themselves (likely to be more than £24.6m if obtained from an outside source). So it is possible to consider the OS as more of a publicly-operated for-profit company than as a public-service.
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
Why do you think it works quite well? It's only just happened after years of arguments and the OS itself fought against it, most independent groups fought for it to go further and we've ended up with a compromise. If governments limit themselves to doing things that can be sold on the open market then there would be no need for a government. Instead they should be catering to the market failures like generating mapping data that can then be used by government and business alike at marginal cost i.e. free.
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  I think it works well because the free data covers much of what the public could want to use (I have used this many times myself), whilst I can't really think up a case in my mind where non-businesses would want to use the more detailed information (aside from councils who are provided this for free). More important to me than free OS data would be if the UK govt could create a GIS database of land ownership. This is where they lag behind the USA and Australia to my mind...

rdtsc 15y ago

But hasn't the public also been paying for low level data as well. Or is that provided by a 3rd party company who only licenses access to data in a strict and limited way (as a service) to the govt?

twelvechairs 15y ago
I looked it up. According to their own data (see link at the bottom of http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/02/ordnance-survey-business-model-costs-leak http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/02/ordnance-su... - also this link is well worth a read), about 1/4 (£24.6m) it is publicly funded (tax money), while the other 3/4 (£68.7m) is self-funded (revenue from sales). However, the government probably gain more than they pay in terms of being able to use the data freely themselves (likely to be more than £24.6m if obtained from an outside source). So it is possible to consider the OS as more of a publicly-operated for-profit company than as a public-service.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago

Why do you think it works quite well? It's only just happened after years of arguments and the OS itself fought against it, most independent groups fought for it to go further and we've ended up with a compromise. If governments limit themselves to doing things that can be sold on the open market then there would be no need for a government. Instead they should be catering to the market failures like generating mapping data that can then be used by government and business alike at marginal cost i.e. free.

twelvechairs 15y ago
I think it works well because the free data covers much of what the public could want to use (I have used this many times myself), whilst I can't really think up a case in my mind where non-businesses would want to use the more detailed information (aside from councils who are provided this for free). More important to me than free OS data would be if the UK govt could create a GIS database of land ownership. This is where they lag behind the USA and Australia to my mind...