Hi John,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our
> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers via
> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the
> info. We don't all charge for info!
>
For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
and an example query:
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is definitely
not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain, use the
same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one dataset
available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify exactly
which data layers are available through the API under an open licenses?
Kind regards,
Rob :)
The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
Copyright notices
This application and map production service is copyright reserved by Auckland
Regional Council.
Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by Ollivier & Co NZ
Ltd.
Environmental Data Disclaimer
Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
2. Data and information accessed from this website should be treated as
provisional,
as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional Council’s
quality assurance process.
3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing this data in
good faith,
accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for decisions of
public or personal safety,
and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial monetary or
operational consequences.
5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form without
agreement of
Auckland Regional Council.
6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source of the data
used in any publication,
media statement or other documents, or oral statements which include the
data and are
made available to third parties, including the general public.
7. However, quality assured data is available to the general public and
businesses.
It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to individual layers.
It would also be great if the licenses chosen where one of the NZGOAL licenses
specifically allowing free reuse (including commercial).
JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of these
datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some of the local
councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a bit more of a lead in
supplying open and free data.
Glen
On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>>
>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our
>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers via
>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the
>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>
>
> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
> and an example query:
>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>
> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is definitely
> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain, use the
> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one dataset
> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify exactly
> which data layers are available through the API under an open licenses?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rob :)
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
You have summarised the challenges we face as we move from a "let's make money
off the data" to "put it out there for all". We are not monitoring usage beyond
making sure no one else charges for the data we provide.
Intent <> Policy!
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
Sent from my iPad
On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup <email obscured>> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>>
>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our
>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers via
>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the
>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>
>
> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
> and an example query:
>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>
> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is definitely
> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain, use the
> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one dataset
> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify exactly
> which data layers are available through the API under an open licenses?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Rob :)
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov approach.
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
Sent from my iPad
On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>
> Copyright notices
>
> This application and map production service is copyright reserved by Auckland
Regional Council.
> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by Ollivier & Co
NZ Ltd.
>
> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>
> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be treated as
provisional,
> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional Council’s
quality assurance process.
> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing this data
in good faith,
> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for decisions of
public or personal safety,
> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial monetary or
operational consequences.
> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form without
agreement of
> Auckland Regional Council.
> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source of the
data used in any publication,
> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which include
the data and are
> made available to third parties, including the general public.
> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general public and
businesses.
>
> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to individual
layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen where one of the NZGOAL
licenses specifically allowing free reuse (including commercial).
>
> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of these
datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some of the local
councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a bit more of a lead in
supplying open and free data.
>
> Glen
> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our
>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers
via
>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the
>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>
>>
>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>> and an example query:
>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>
>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is definitely
>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain, use the
>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one dataset
>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify exactly
>> which data layers are available through the API under an open licenses?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Rob :)
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Hi John,
Earlier this year, Koordinates scraped data from the ALGGi portal to
make it discoverable and downloadable for free in a variety of formats
from the koordinates.com website. Unfortunately ALGGi immediately
requested we make this data non-downloadable. We complied with the "no
downloads" request as the license terms for the data are unclear, thus
all default rights under the Copyright Act are presumed to be claimed
by ALGGi/ARC.
The license terms currently prohibit making data downloadable:
> In relation to displaying Digital Data or Derivative Products on
> websites or through web mapping services (and unless otherwise
> agreed in writing by the Council), the following provisions apply:
> (a) The Digital Data and Derivative Products may only be displayed
> on websites owned by or hosted exclusively for the Customer and only
> in view only format (e.g. the Digital Data and Derivative Products
> must not be available for extraction or download in any format
> except screenshots or pdfs ); (b) the Digital Data and Derivative
> Products may not under any circumstances be displayed by (or with
> the authority of) the Customer on or via any third party web mapping
> service; (c) the Customer must ensure that the following notice is
> displayed alongside the Digital Data and Derivative Products: Data
> contained in this product is provided courtesy of ALGGi who makes no
> claims as to its reliability, accuracy or adequacy for any
> particular purpose.; and (d) the Customer may not charge any fees
> for any online access to the Digital Data.
Could you provide more information about this data recommendations
paper?
Regards,
Ed Corkery
On 30/07/2010, at 4:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
> approach.
>
> John
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>>
>> Copyright notices
>>
>> This application and map production service is copyright reserved
>> by Auckland Regional Council.
>> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by
>> Ollivier & Co NZ Ltd.
>>
>> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>>
>> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
>> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be
>> treated as provisional,
>> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional
>> Councils quality assurance process.
>> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing
>> this data in good faith,
>> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
>> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for
>> decisions of public or personal safety,
>> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial
>> monetary or operational consequences.
>> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form
>> without agreement of
>> Auckland Regional Council.
>> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source
>> of the data used in any publication,
>> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which
>> include the data and are
>> made available to third parties, including the general public.
>> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general
>> public and businesses.
>>
>> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to
>> individual layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen
>> where one of the NZGOAL licenses specifically allowing free reuse
>> (including commercial).
>>
>> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of
>> these datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some
>> of the local councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a
>> bit more of a lead in supplying open and free data.
>>
>> Glen
>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access
>>>> to our
>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the
>>>> layers via
>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically
>>>> get the
>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>
>>>
>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>> and an example query:
>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>
>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is
>>> definitely
>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain,
>>> use the
>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one
>>> dataset
>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify
>>> exactly
>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open
>>> licenses?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Rob :)
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2O22sjcNNskhhCUI4iVPg9
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Monitoring usage and legally being able to use the data are two different
things. Turning a blind eye does not give companies or individuals much
confidence that they can use the data reliably. I'm also concerned about the
'no one else charges for the data'. You won't get the full benefits of having
the data open if you stop people from making money from the data. The key is to
provide it to everybody for free on an open license so that anyone can build
innovative services on top of the data.
Glen
PS: can we get some more info on the briefing paper you mentioned in another
post? It would be great if you could get input from some of the open data
community.
On 30/07/2010, at 4:27 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> You have summarised the challenges we face as we move from a "let's make
money off the data" to "put it out there for all". We are not monitoring usage
beyond making sure no one else charges for the data we provide.
>
> Intent <> Policy!
>
> John
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our
>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers
via
>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the
>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>
>>
>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>> and an example query:
>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>
>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is definitely
>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain, use the
>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one dataset
>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify exactly
>> which data layers are available through the API under an open licenses?
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Rob :)
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3nUQUG5bZJjmnh9v0zzkhg
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
On 30 July 2010 16:27, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> You have summarised the challenges we face as we move from a "let's make
> money off the data" to "put it out there for all". We are not monitoring
> usage beyond making sure no one else charges for the data we provide.
>
Why should others be restricting from charging for the data provided by
government sources? In order to justify the cost, it would probably be in a
much more relevant format than the original or would have been combined with
some other data to make things more useful.
The challenge we face is the agreement that the CEOs committed to several years
ago. The agreement aimed to cost recover where possible so as to further fund
future data sets. The costs for acquiring aerial imagery runs into the 100s of
thousands of dollars. (even millions) Those costs must of course be met by the
ratepayers of the Auckland region. - hence the sensitivity. Additionally some
of the data us provided to us under strict copyright :(
Now we know from studies that charging for data does not generate the same
positive impact that providing it for free does, by a factor if about 6.
What we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the
data more freely available for end users than it ever was. Academic
institutions, engineering and planning companies have consistently told us how
much money and effort we have saved them.
I know that doesn't answer your business needs but it is a step in the right
direction.
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
On 31/07/2010, at 20:05, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Earlier this year, Koordinates scraped data from the ALGGi portal to
> make it discoverable and downloadable for free in a variety of formats
> from the koordinates.com website. Unfortunately ALGGi immediately
> requested we make this data non-downloadable. We complied with the "no
> downloads" request as the license terms for the data are unclear, thus
> all default rights under the Copyright Act are presumed to be claimed
> by ALGGi/ARC.
>
> The license terms currently prohibit making data downloadable:
>
>> In relation to displaying Digital Data or Derivative Products on
>> websites or through web mapping services (and unless otherwise
>> agreed in writing by the Council), the following provisions apply:
>> (a) The Digital Data and Derivative Products may only be displayed
>> on websites owned by or hosted exclusively for the Customer and only
>> in view only format (e.g. the Digital Data and Derivative Products
>> must not be available for extraction or download in any format
>> except screenshots or pdfs ); (b) the Digital Data and Derivative
>> Products may not under any circumstances be displayed by (or with
>> the authority of) the Customer on or via any third party web mapping
>> service; (c) the Customer must ensure that the following notice is
>> displayed alongside the Digital Data and Derivative Products: Data
>> contained in this product is provided courtesy of ALGGi who makes no
>> claims as to its reliability, accuracy or adequacy for any
>> particular purpose.; and (d) the Customer may not charge any fees
>> for any online access to the Digital Data.
>
> Could you provide more information about this data recommendations
> paper?
>
> Regards,
> Ed Corkery
>
> On 30/07/2010, at 4:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
>
>> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
>> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
>> approach.
>>
>> John
>>
>> John Holley
>> <email obscured>
>> <email obscured>
>> +64 275 952 625
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>>> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>>>
>>> Copyright notices
>>>
>>> This application and map production service is copyright reserved
>>> by Auckland Regional Council.
>>> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by
>>> Ollivier & Co NZ Ltd.
>>>
>>> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>>>
>>> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
>>> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be
>>> treated as provisional,
>>> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional
>>> Councils quality assurance process.
>>> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing
>>> this data in good faith,
>>> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
>>> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for
>>> decisions of public or personal safety,
>>> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial
>>> monetary or operational consequences.
>>> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form
>>> without agreement of
>>> Auckland Regional Council.
>>> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source
>>> of the data used in any publication,
>>> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which
>>> include the data and are
>>> made available to third parties, including the general public.
>>> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general
>>> public and businesses.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to
>>> individual layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen
>>> where one of the NZGOAL licenses specifically allowing free reuse
>>> (including commercial).
>>>
>>> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of
>>> these datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some
>>> of the local councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a
>>> bit more of a lead in supplying open and free data.
>>>
>>> Glen
>>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access
>>>>> to our
>>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the
>>>>> layers via
>>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically
>>>>> get the
>>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>>> and an example query:
>>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>>
>>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is
>>>> definitely
>>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain,
>>>> use the
>>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one
>>>> dataset
>>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify
>>>> exactly
>>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open
>>>> licenses?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rob :)
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>>
>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>
>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2O22sjcNNskhhCUI4iVPg9
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3PMToAYoJ4FFgYsxRGKwTv
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
The paper isn't available publicly as far as I know yet.
I do though struggle with others being able to charge for IP that I provide for
free which they may modify/ reuse in some way. I am a huge OSS proponent and
treat data IP no differently to code IP.
OSS code that we develop at the ARC is normally provided under BY-NC-SA and I
feel data should be the same. But then again that is my personal view :)
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
On 31/07/2010, at 20:20, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
> Monitoring usage and legally being able to use the data are two different
things. Turning a blind eye does not give companies or individuals much
confidence that they can use the data reliably. I'm also concerned about the
'no one else charges for the data'. You won't get the full benefits of having
the data open if you stop people from making money from the data. The key is to
provide it to everybody for free on an open license so that anyone can build
innovative services on top of the data.
>
> Glen
>
> PS: can we get some more info on the briefing paper you mentioned in another
post? It would be great if you could get input from some of the open data
community.
>
> On 30/07/2010, at 4:27 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> You have summarised the challenges we face as we move from a "let's make
money off the data" to "put it out there for all". We are not monitoring usage
beyond making sure no one else charges for the data we provide.
>>
>> Intent <> Policy!
>>
>> John
>>
>> John Holley
>> <email obscured>
>> <email obscured>
>> +64 275 952 625
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access to our
>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the layers
via
>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically get the
>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>
>>>
>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>> and an example query:
>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>
>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is definitely
>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain, use the
>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one dataset
>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify exactly
>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open licenses?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Rob :)
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3nUQUG5bZJjmnh9v0zzkhg
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/63NO3iM7FO5t5kgZ7mDVwx
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
As I said in another response, why should what is open source data be treated
any differently to OS code? (this is my personal view!)
If I provide data under BY-NC-SA then those wanting to have a business based on
the data should look, possibly, to one based on professional services, as many
OSS companies do.
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
On 31/07/2010, at 20:37, Tim McNamara <email obscured>> wrote:
> On 30 July 2010 16:27, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> You have summarised the challenges we face as we move from a "let's make
>> money off the data" to "put it out there for all". We are not monitoring
>> usage beyond making sure no one else charges for the data we provide.
>>
>
> Why should others be restricting from charging for the data provided by
> government sources? In order to justify the cost, it would probably be in a
> much more relevant format than the original or would have been combined with
> some other data to make things more useful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim.
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3h1gRtY7yynBzJYu3Pnqab
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
On 31/07/2010, at 9:01 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> The challenge we face is the agreement that the CEOs committed to several
years ago. The agreement aimed to cost recover where possible so as to further
fund future data sets. The costs for acquiring aerial imagery runs into the
100s of thousands of dollars. (even millions) Those costs must of course be met
by the ratepayers of the Auckland region. - hence the sensitivity.
That might be an argument if the council made significant money from these
datasets. From certain accounts revenue made from the data is less than the
cost of administering the charging in some instances.
> Additionally some of the data us provided to us under strict copyright :(
Well, that is why we are going to have a real problem undoing contracts signed
with third parties where the rights to resell where given away for a discounted
rate on the original work. We are hopefully moving to a model where third
parties provide the expertise but the government retains all rights to the
data.
>
> What we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the
data more freely available for end users than it ever was. Academic
institutions, engineering and planning companies have consistently told us how
much money and effort we have saved them.
So planning companies can use the data for free? How is this not commercial use
and resale of the data? Any use for any commercial gain means it is commercial.
You used some data to compile a report that you charged a client for?
Commercial. You put up a website with some aggregated data and put some google
adsense ads next to it? Commercial.
I have no problems with others making money from the datasets if it makes my
life easier. I will happily give a Dev a couple of bucks for an iPhone app that
has bus times if it makes my life easier.
The core thing that makes the really interesting stuff possible still comes
back to free in cost and free is use.
Glen
>
> I know that doesn't answer your business needs but it is a step in the right
direction.
>
> John
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
>
> On 31/07/2010, at 20:05, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Earlier this year, Koordinates scraped data from the ALGGi portal to
>> make it discoverable and downloadable for free in a variety of formats
>> from the koordinates.com website. Unfortunately ALGGi immediately
>> requested we make this data non-downloadable. We complied with the "no
>> downloads" request as the license terms for the data are unclear, thus
>> all default rights under the Copyright Act are presumed to be claimed
>> by ALGGi/ARC.
>>
>> The license terms currently prohibit making data downloadable:
>>
>>> In relation to displaying Digital Data or Derivative Products on
>>> websites or through web mapping services (and unless otherwise
>>> agreed in writing by the Council), the following provisions apply:
>>> (a) The Digital Data and Derivative Products may only be displayed
>>> on websites owned by or hosted exclusively for the Customer and only
>>> in view only format (e.g. the Digital Data and Derivative Products
>>> must not be available for extraction or download in any format
>>> except screenshots or pdfs ); (b) the Digital Data and Derivative
>>> Products may not under any circumstances be displayed by (or with
>>> the authority of) the Customer on or via any third party web mapping
>>> service; (c) the Customer must ensure that the following notice is
>>> displayed alongside the Digital Data and Derivative Products: Data
>>> contained in this product is provided courtesy of ALGGi who makes no
>>> claims as to its reliability, accuracy or adequacy for any
>>> particular purpose.; and (d) the Customer may not charge any fees
>>> for any online access to the Digital Data.
>>
>> Could you provide more information about this data recommendations
>> paper?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ed Corkery
>>
>> On 30/07/2010, at 4:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
>>
>>> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
>>> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> John Holley
>>> <email obscured>
>>> <email obscured>
>>> +64 275 952 625
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>>>>
>>>> Copyright notices
>>>>
>>>> This application and map production service is copyright reserved
>>>> by Auckland Regional Council.
>>>> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by
>>>> Ollivier & Co NZ Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>>>>
>>>> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
>>>> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be
>>>> treated as provisional,
>>>> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional
>>>> Councils quality assurance process.
>>>> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing
>>>> this data in good faith,
>>>> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
>>>> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for
>>>> decisions of public or personal safety,
>>>> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial
>>>> monetary or operational consequences.
>>>> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form
>>>> without agreement of
>>>> Auckland Regional Council.
>>>> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source
>>>> of the data used in any publication,
>>>> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which
>>>> include the data and are
>>>> made available to third parties, including the general public.
>>>> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general
>>>> public and businesses.
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to
>>>> individual layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen
>>>> where one of the NZGOAL licenses specifically allowing free reuse
>>>> (including commercial).
>>>>
>>>> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of
>>>> these datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some
>>>> of the local councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a
>>>> bit more of a lead in supplying open and free data.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access
>>>>>> to our
>>>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the
>>>>>> layers via
>>>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically
>>>>>> get the
>>>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>>>> and an example query:
>>>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>>>
>>>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is
>>>>> definitely
>>>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain,
>>>>> use the
>>>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one
>>>>> dataset
>>>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify
>>>>> exactly
>>>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open
>>>>> licenses?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob :)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>>>
>>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>>>>
>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>
>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2O22sjcNNskhhCUI4iVPg9
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3PMToAYoJ4FFgYsxRGKwTv
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/24W6Tq8gmCHsV0z0kie3h6
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
> OSS code that we develop at the ARC is normally provided under BY-NC-SA and I
> feel data should be the same.
That seems a bit odd, frankly.
Even the Creative Commons folk say: "Creative Commons licenses should not be
used for software"
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#Can_I_license_software_using_CC_licenses.3F
).
And I don't want to get onto a "Free Software" Vs "OSS" debate, but I find
these statements quite hard to reconcile this:
> I do though struggle with others being able to
> charge for IP that I provide for free which they may
> modify/ reuse in some way."
with this:
> I am a huge OSS proponent...
Having said that, I do applaud (and sympathise with) this sentiment: "What we
have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the data more
freely available for end users than it ever was."
Presumably one of the other difficulties faced at the local and regional level
is that while the cost of collecting/buying the data is met from rates
collected locally, the economic benefit of enabling free re-use by others is
gained by central government, in the form of taxes on company profits.
Should this benefit be redistributed to the local/regional authorities, and if
so, what is the basis for calculating the amount to be returned to them?
Andrew
On 31 Jul 2010, at 10:00 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:
On 31/07/2010, at 9:01 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> The challenge we face is the agreement that the CEOs committed to several
years ago. The agreement aimed to cost recover where possible so as to further
fund future data sets. The costs for acquiring aerial imagery runs into the
100s of thousands of dollars. (even millions) Those costs must of course be met
by the ratepayers of the Auckland region. - hence the sensitivity.
That might be an argument if the council made significant money from these
datasets. From certain accounts revenue made from the data is less than the
cost of administering the charging in some instances.
> Additionally some of the data us provided to us under strict copyright :(
Well, that is why we are going to have a real problem undoing contracts signed
with third parties where the rights to resell where given away for a discounted
rate on the original work. We are hopefully moving to a model where third
parties provide the expertise but the government retains all rights to the
data.
>
> What we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the
data more freely available for end users than it ever was. Academic
institutions, engineering and planning companies have consistently told us how
much money and effort we have saved them.
So planning companies can use the data for free? How is this not commercial use
and resale of the data? Any use for any commercial gain means it is commercial.
You used some data to compile a report that you charged a client for?
Commercial. You put up a website with some aggregated data and put some google
adsense ads next to it? Commercial.
I have no problems with others making money from the datasets if it makes my
life easier. I will happily give a Dev a couple of bucks for an iPhone app that
has bus times if it makes my life easier.
The core thing that makes the really interesting stuff possible still comes
back to free in cost and free is use.
Glen
>
> I know that doesn't answer your business needs but it is a step in the right
direction.
>
> John
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
>
> On 31/07/2010, at 20:05, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Earlier this year, Koordinates scraped data from the ALGGi portal to
>> make it discoverable and downloadable for free in a variety of formats
>> from the koordinates.com website. Unfortunately ALGGi immediately
>> requested we make this data non-downloadable. We complied with the "no
>> downloads" request as the license terms for the data are unclear, thus
>> all default rights under the Copyright Act are presumed to be claimed
>> by ALGGi/ARC.
>>
>> The license terms currently prohibit making data downloadable:
>>
>>> In relation to displaying Digital Data or Derivative Products on
>>> websites or through web mapping services (and unless otherwise
>>> agreed in writing by the Council), the following provisions apply:
>>> (a) The Digital Data and Derivative Products may only be displayed
>>> on websites owned by or hosted exclusively for the Customer and only
>>> in view only format (e.g. the Digital Data and Derivative Products
>>> must not be available for extraction or download in any format
>>> except screenshots or pdfs ); (b) the Digital Data and Derivative
>>> Products may not under any circumstances be displayed by (or with
>>> the authority of) the Customer on or via any third party web mapping
>>> service; (c) the Customer must ensure that the following notice is
>>> displayed alongside the Digital Data and Derivative Products: Data
>>> contained in this product is provided courtesy of ALGGi who makes no
>>> claims as to its reliability, accuracy or adequacy for any
>>> particular purpose.; and (d) the Customer may not charge any fees
>>> for any online access to the Digital Data.
>>
>> Could you provide more information about this data recommendations
>> paper?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ed Corkery
>>
>> On 30/07/2010, at 4:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
>>
>>> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
>>> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> John Holley
>>> <email obscured>
>>> <email obscured>
>>> +64 275 952 625
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>>>>
>>>> Copyright notices
>>>>
>>>> This application and map production service is copyright reserved
>>>> by Auckland Regional Council.
>>>> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by
>>>> Ollivier & Co NZ Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>>>>
>>>> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
>>>> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be
>>>> treated as provisional,
>>>> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional
>>>> Councils quality assurance process.
>>>> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing
>>>> this data in good faith,
>>>> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
>>>> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for
>>>> decisions of public or personal safety,
>>>> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial
>>>> monetary or operational consequences.
>>>> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form
>>>> without agreement of
>>>> Auckland Regional Council.
>>>> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source
>>>> of the data used in any publication,
>>>> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which
>>>> include the data and are
>>>> made available to third parties, including the general public.
>>>> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general
>>>> public and businesses.
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to
>>>> individual layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen
>>>> where one of the NZGOAL licenses specifically allowing free reuse
>>>> (including commercial).
>>>>
>>>> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of
>>>> these datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some
>>>> of the local councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a
>>>> bit more of a lead in supplying open and free data.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access
>>>>>> to our
>>>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the
>>>>>> layers via
>>>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically
>>>>>> get the
>>>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>>>> and an example query:
>>>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>>>
>>>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is
>>>>> definitely
>>>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain,
>>>>> use the
>>>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one
>>>>> dataset
>>>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify
>>>>> exactly
>>>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open
>>>>> licenses?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob :)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>>>
>>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>>>>
>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>
>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2O22sjcNNskhhCUI4iVPg9
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3PMToAYoJ4FFgYsxRGKwTv
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/24W6Tq8gmCHsV0z0kie3h6
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/5lqo3mR3rz2I1QfUHK3b1C
To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
Start your own free groups and site with
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Sorry, that should have been 'fiscal benefit', not 'economic benefit'.
On 31 Jul 2010, at 10:07 PM, Andrew Ecclestone wrote:
Presumably one of the other difficulties faced at the local and regional level
is that while the cost of collecting/buying the data is met from rates
collected locally, the economic benefit of enabling free re-use by others is
gained by central government, in the form of taxes on company profits.
Should this benefit be redistributed to the local/regional authorities, and if
so, what is the basis for calculating the amount to be returned to them?
Andrew
On 31 Jul 2010, at 10:00 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:
On 31/07/2010, at 9:01 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> The challenge we face is the agreement that the CEOs committed to several
years ago. The agreement aimed to cost recover where possible so as to further
fund future data sets. The costs for acquiring aerial imagery runs into the
100s of thousands of dollars. (even millions) Those costs must of course be met
by the ratepayers of the Auckland region. - hence the sensitivity.
That might be an argument if the council made significant money from these
datasets. From certain accounts revenue made from the data is less than the
cost of administering the charging in some instances.
> Additionally some of the data us provided to us under strict copyright :(
Well, that is why we are going to have a real problem undoing contracts signed
with third parties where the rights to resell where given away for a discounted
rate on the original work. We are hopefully moving to a model where third
parties provide the expertise but the government retains all rights to the
data.
>
> What we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the
data more freely available for end users than it ever was. Academic
institutions, engineering and planning companies have consistently told us how
much money and effort we have saved them.
So planning companies can use the data for free? How is this not commercial use
and resale of the data? Any use for any commercial gain means it is commercial.
You used some data to compile a report that you charged a client for?
Commercial. You put up a website with some aggregated data and put some google
adsense ads next to it? Commercial.
I have no problems with others making money from the datasets if it makes my
life easier. I will happily give a Dev a couple of bucks for an iPhone app that
has bus times if it makes my life easier.
The core thing that makes the really interesting stuff possible still comes
back to free in cost and free is use.
Glen
>
> I know that doesn't answer your business needs but it is a step in the right
direction.
>
> John
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
>
> On 31/07/2010, at 20:05, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Earlier this year, Koordinates scraped data from the ALGGi portal to
>> make it discoverable and downloadable for free in a variety of formats
>> from the koordinates.com website. Unfortunately ALGGi immediately
>> requested we make this data non-downloadable. We complied with the "no
>> downloads" request as the license terms for the data are unclear, thus
>> all default rights under the Copyright Act are presumed to be claimed
>> by ALGGi/ARC.
>>
>> The license terms currently prohibit making data downloadable:
>>
>>> In relation to displaying Digital Data or Derivative Products on
>>> websites or through web mapping services (and unless otherwise
>>> agreed in writing by the Council), the following provisions apply:
>>> (a) The Digital Data and Derivative Products may only be displayed
>>> on websites owned by or hosted exclusively for the Customer and only
>>> in view only format (e.g. the Digital Data and Derivative Products
>>> must not be available for extraction or download in any format
>>> except screenshots or pdfs ); (b) the Digital Data and Derivative
>>> Products may not under any circumstances be displayed by (or with
>>> the authority of) the Customer on or via any third party web mapping
>>> service; (c) the Customer must ensure that the following notice is
>>> displayed alongside the Digital Data and Derivative Products: Data
>>> contained in this product is provided courtesy of ALGGi who makes no
>>> claims as to its reliability, accuracy or adequacy for any
>>> particular purpose.; and (d) the Customer may not charge any fees
>>> for any online access to the Digital Data.
>>
>> Could you provide more information about this data recommendations
>> paper?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ed Corkery
>>
>> On 30/07/2010, at 4:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
>>
>>> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
>>> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> John Holley
>>> <email obscured>
>>> <email obscured>
>>> +64 275 952 625
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>>>>
>>>> Copyright notices
>>>>
>>>> This application and map production service is copyright reserved
>>>> by Auckland Regional Council.
>>>> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by
>>>> Ollivier & Co NZ Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>>>>
>>>> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
>>>> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be
>>>> treated as provisional,
>>>> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional
>>>> Councils quality assurance process.
>>>> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing
>>>> this data in good faith,
>>>> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
>>>> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for
>>>> decisions of public or personal safety,
>>>> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial
>>>> monetary or operational consequences.
>>>> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form
>>>> without agreement of
>>>> Auckland Regional Council.
>>>> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source
>>>> of the data used in any publication,
>>>> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which
>>>> include the data and are
>>>> made available to third parties, including the general public.
>>>> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general
>>>> public and businesses.
>>>>
>>>> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to
>>>> individual layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen
>>>> where one of the NZGOAL licenses specifically allowing free reuse
>>>> (including commercial).
>>>>
>>>> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of
>>>> these datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some
>>>> of the local councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a
>>>> bit more of a lead in supplying open and free data.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access
>>>>>> to our
>>>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the
>>>>>> layers via
>>>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically
>>>>>> get the
>>>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>>>> and an example query:
>>>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>>>
>>>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is
>>>>> definitely
>>>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain,
>>>>> use the
>>>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one
>>>>> dataset
>>>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify
>>>>> exactly
>>>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open
>>>>> licenses?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob :)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>>>
>>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>>>>
>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>
>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2O22sjcNNskhhCUI4iVPg9
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3PMToAYoJ4FFgYsxRGKwTv
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/24W6Tq8gmCHsV0z0kie3h6
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/5lqo3mR3rz2I1QfUHK3b1C
To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
Start your own free groups and site with
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
-----------------------------------------
Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/TiT6NclrokPmTrWIFAYKe
To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
<email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
Start your own free groups and site with
OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
Host your own online groups site with
GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Not at all. Let's take an example of real time bus information and timetables.
This information should be distributed as widely as possible to get the most
economic benefit. More widely available transport information = more convenient
for people to find out about transport = more people willing to take public
transport = less cars on the road (economic benefit to the region).
Now if ARTA was to take on the role of being the sole distributor of data then
they would need to develop an iPhone app, a android app, a blackberry app, a
windows widget, a Mac widget, a text messaging service, etc. The cost of this
would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Opening this data for free
would allow third parties to build these for zero cost to the tax payer, a
direct fiscal saving to the region.
As an added benefit people will build apps on top of this data that no one else
has thought off and allow other uses that can save time and money.
So the argument is why don't we charge these app makers to access the data?
Quite simply we live in a city of 1 million people and a country of 4 million.
The sums just don't add up so no one will build anything decent. You also have
the issue that people who don't have any business drivers for making something
cool just can't. You are hardly going to build a blackberry app and pay
$100/month for the data just to scratch an itch but if the data was free you
might build one, put it out there and give the app away for free. You have
already seen with the 'free' (as in cost, not license) transit feed data at
least 3 competing iPhone apps that allow you to view bus schedules. This would
not have happened if there was a charge to the data.
I can point to numerous cases where charging for data has a direct cost in time
and money to the public. My current bugbear is ratable value information from
councils but people are probably sick of me harping on about that one so Ill
leave it as an exercise to the reader to come up with some other examples.
Thanks,
Glen
PS: This is a great discussion to have. We need to be able to prove these
points to the councils if we are to get this data opened. Looking forward to
meeting other Aucklanders at the AKL meet up on Wednesday.
On 31/07/2010, at 10:07 PM, Andrew Ecclestone <email obscured>> wrote:
> Presumably one of the other difficulties faced at the local and regional
level is that while the cost of collecting/buying the data is met from rates
collected locally, the economic benefit of enabling free re-use by others is
gained by central government, in the form of taxes on company profits.
>
> Should this benefit be redistributed to the local/regional authorities, and
if so, what is the basis for calculating the amount to be returned to them?
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 31 Jul 2010, at 10:00 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:
>
> On 31/07/2010, at 9:01 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> The challenge we face is the agreement that the CEOs committed to several
years ago. The agreement aimed to cost recover where possible so as to further
fund future data sets. The costs for acquiring aerial imagery runs into the
100s of thousands of dollars. (even millions) Those costs must of course be met
by the ratepayers of the Auckland region. - hence the sensitivity.
>
> That might be an argument if the council made significant money from these
datasets. From certain accounts revenue made from the data is less than the
cost of administering the charging in some instances.
>
>> Additionally some of the data us provided to us under strict copyright :(
>
> Well, that is why we are going to have a real problem undoing contracts
signed with third parties where the rights to resell where given away for a
discounted rate on the original work. We are hopefully moving to a model where
third parties provide the expertise but the government retains all rights to
the data.
>>
>> What we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the
data more freely available for end users than it ever was. Academic
institutions, engineering and planning companies have consistently told us how
much money and effort we have saved them.
>
> So planning companies can use the data for free? How is this not commercial
use and resale of the data? Any use for any commercial gain means it is
commercial. You used some data to compile a report that you charged a client
for? Commercial. You put up a website with some aggregated data and put some
google adsense ads next to it? Commercial.
>
> I have no problems with others making money from the datasets if it makes my
life easier. I will happily give a Dev a couple of bucks for an iPhone app that
has bus times if it makes my life easier.
>
> The core thing that makes the really interesting stuff possible still comes
back to free in cost and free is use.
>
> Glen
>
>>
>> I know that doesn't answer your business needs but it is a step in the right
direction.
>>
>> John
>>
>> John Holley
>> <email obscured>
>> <email obscured>
>> +64 275 952 625
>>
>> On 31/07/2010, at 20:05, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Earlier this year, Koordinates scraped data from the ALGGi portal to
>>> make it discoverable and downloadable for free in a variety of formats
>>> from the koordinates.com website. Unfortunately ALGGi immediately
>>> requested we make this data non-downloadable. We complied with the "no
>>> downloads" request as the license terms for the data are unclear, thus
>>> all default rights under the Copyright Act are presumed to be claimed
>>> by ALGGi/ARC.
>>>
>>> The license terms currently prohibit making data downloadable:
>>>
>>>> In relation to displaying Digital Data or Derivative Products on
>>>> websites or through web mapping services (and unless otherwise
>>>> agreed in writing by the Council), the following provisions apply:
>>>> (a) The Digital Data and Derivative Products may only be displayed
>>>> on websites owned by or hosted exclusively for the Customer and only
>>>> in view only format (e.g. the Digital Data and Derivative Products
>>>> must not be available for extraction or download in any format
>>>> except screenshots or pdfs ); (b) the Digital Data and Derivative
>>>> Products may not under any circumstances be displayed by (or with
>>>> the authority of) the Customer on or via any third party web mapping
>>>> service; (c) the Customer must ensure that the following notice is
>>>> displayed alongside the Digital Data and Derivative Products: Data
>>>> contained in this product is provided courtesy of ALGGi who makes no
>>>> claims as to its reliability, accuracy or adequacy for any
>>>> particular purpose.; and (d) the Customer may not charge any fees
>>>> for any online access to the Digital Data.
>>>
>>> Could you provide more information about this data recommendations
>>> paper?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ed Corkery
>>>
>>> On 30/07/2010, at 4:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
>>>
>>>> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
>>>> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
>>>> approach.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> John Holley
>>>> <email obscured>
>>>> <email obscured>
>>>> +64 275 952 625
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On 30/07/2010, at 3:57 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The clickwrap agreement also has these statements:
>>>>>
>>>>> Copyright notices
>>>>>
>>>>> This application and map production service is copyright reserved
>>>>> by Auckland Regional Council.
>>>>> Land Parcels (LINZ CRS), Crown Copyright Reserved, supplied by
>>>>> Ollivier & Co NZ Ltd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Environmental Data Disclaimer
>>>>>
>>>>> Auckland Regional Council owns the copyright on the data.
>>>>> 2. Data and information accessed from this website should be
>>>>> treated as provisional,
>>>>> as it has not been assessed through the Auckland Regional
>>>>> Councils quality assurance process.
>>>>> 3. Auckland Regional Council and its employees, while providing
>>>>> this data in good faith,
>>>>> accept no liability from any use of the data provided.
>>>>> 4. Users are therefore cautioned in the use of this data for
>>>>> decisions of public or personal safety,
>>>>> and/or the conduct of business that involves substantial
>>>>> monetary or operational consequences.
>>>>> 5. Data may not be sold to any third party in an unmodified form
>>>>> without agreement of
>>>>> Auckland Regional Council.
>>>>> 6. Auckland Regional Council shall be acknowledged as the source
>>>>> of the data used in any publication,
>>>>> media statement or other documents, or oral statements which
>>>>> include the data and are
>>>>> made available to third parties, including the general public.
>>>>> 7. However, quality assured data is available to the general
>>>>> public and businesses.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be nice to be able to add specific license data to
>>>>> individual layers. It would also be great if the licenses chosen
>>>>> where one of the NZGOAL licenses specifically allowing free reuse
>>>>> (including commercial).
>>>>>
>>>>> JOHN: Any chance of someone looking into the licensing of some of
>>>>> these datasets? There are quite a few inconsistencies between some
>>>>> of the local councils and it would be good to see Auckland take a
>>>>> bit more of a lead in supplying open and free data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen
>>>>> On 30/07/2010, at 2:49 PM, Robert Coup wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, John Holley <email obscured>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an aside, the ARC maps site,
>>>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/aucklandregionviewer provides access
>>>>>>> to our
>>>>>>> Cultural and Heritage Index at no cost - you just need to add the
>>>>>>> layers via
>>>>>>> the Map Content widget. You can use REST APIs to programmatically
>>>>>>> get the
>>>>>>> info. We don't all charge for info!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For everyone's info, the root of the API is available at
>>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services
>>>>>> and an example query:
>>>>>>
http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/LiveMaps/CulturalHeritageInventory(Public)/MapServer/1/query?text=&geometry=&geometryType=esriGeometryEnvelope&inSR=&spatialRel=esriSpatialRelIntersects&where=1%3D1&returnGeometry=true&outSR=&outFields=&f=html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My concern is the licensing/free-ness though. If you go to
>>>>>> http://maps.auckland.govt.nz/ you end up at ALGGI which is
>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>> not-open and not-free. Considering the two sites share a domain,
>>>>>> use the
>>>>>> same web service, and share data (eg. ALGGI aerial photos are one
>>>>>> dataset
>>>>>> available in the AucklandRegionViewer) - is it possible to clarify
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>> which data layers are available through the API under an open
>>>>>> licenses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rob :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2iY0ftEqjnyKLkJ8Dvxry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/6vKu75CnCv3iqUsnhJO2rh
>>>>>
>>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>>
>>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2O22sjcNNskhhCUI4iVPg9
>>>>
>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>
>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3PMToAYoJ4FFgYsxRGKwTv
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/24W6Tq8gmCHsV0z0kie3h6
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/5lqo3mR3rz2I1QfUHK3b1C
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/TiT6NclrokPmTrWIFAYKe
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
On 29/07/2010, at 9:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
> approach.
That's fantastic news, and from what I know it would put Auckland out
in front. Are you hiring? :-)
(Apologies for the long note, I didn't have time to make it shorter)
I've enjoyed the discussion we've had so far. I think that Andrew hit
the nail on the head with the observation that local government
doesn't have the same mission or funding as central government. With
central government, "we're here to help" -- as much as we mock that
sentiment, all but Libertarians feel there is some appropriate role
for central government. So we pay taxes to fund that. However, local
government is funded by property taxes and their self-image is oddly
skewed too.
I was very surprised, when I spoke at the Association of Local
Government IT Managers conference, at the lack of joy in their life.
From what I can tell, it seems widespread in all layers of councils--
nobody has a positive image of their role. Central government's all
about raising GDP, cushioning the rough blows of life, educating kids,
providing equity and opportunity. What is local government about?
Rates, roads, sewers, and shitloads of paperwork every time you want
to put a shed on your property or cut down a tree.
This leads to viewing central government as an expensive burden,
something to be minimized and offset as much as possible. So everyone
feels guilty about taking ratepayer money, about spending it, about
doing any kind of "good" with it because they don't see themselves as
a good. They see themselves as caretakers of expensive infrastructure
and hated rules, and data is incidental to this mission. This leads
to reclaiming $ from data sales, it leads to an effort to claw back
every last penny generated by data, it leads to lock-down and hold-out
policies as data opportunities are thrown away to minimise the funding
harm to infrastructure. (John's policies are much better than most--
this isn't a dig at him)
I prefer to look at councils from the other side. Their role in
society is an enormously positive one: the economic benefits of roads
and transportation are huge, they are the front-line for protecting
and preserving our natural and urban environment, and they manage the
urban development incentives and controls that can substantially
improve job and life opportunities for residents. I'm glad to pay for
that.
If local government views its overall role positively (to create
economic opportunity and to protect and preserve the environment), I
think they can stop looking at their tools as simply sewers and roads
and regulations. I think data can take its place there, because data
can be used to create economic opportunity and help citizens protect
and preserve the environment.
Once you make this mind shift, I think you lose the idea that non-
commercial is the way to go. As Glen pointed out, "commercial" isn't
a black-and-white line. In fact, CC are still trying to figure out
what "non-commercial" actually means. I think it's irrelevant. Once
you accept the role of economic maximisation rather than cost
reduction, the idea that every piece of value will be captured or
ticket-clipped by the council goes out the window. The opportunity
cost and lost value from transaction costs and increased barrier to
entry (if you need a $12k data license, you stop people from starting
projects that might offer value in the long term) dwarf the loss of
revenue ... I LGOIMAed the revenue from data sales from Auckland City
Council, and it's bugger all.
But that switch has to flip; people have to begin thinking of council
as a positive opportunity not a negative cost. I'm keen to know how
we can make that change. Of course, my take on the situation might
also be wrong--I'm keen to know if that's the case, too!
On 31 July 2010 22:07, Andrew Ecclestone <email obscured>> wrote:
> Presumably one of the other difficulties faced at the local and regional
> level is that while the cost of collecting/buying the data is met from rates
> collected locally, the economic benefit of enabling free re-use by others is
> gained by central government, in the form of taxes on company profits.
>
> Should this benefit be redistributed to the local/regional authorities, and
> if so, what is the basis for calculating the amount to be returned to them?
>
> Andrew
This is still actually an issue for central govts too. There's no reason why
the people making money out of a country's data live in or are incorporated
in the country...
What is meant by "country's data"?
Data about the natural and physical resources?
Data bout the financial shenanigans?
Data about something else..
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Tim McNamara
<email obscured>>wrote:
> On 31 July 2010 22:07, Andrew Ecclestone <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > Presumably one of the other difficulties faced at the local and regional
> > level is that while the cost of collecting/buying the data is met from
> rates
> > collected locally, the economic benefit of enabling free re-use by others
> is
> > gained by central government, in the form of taxes on company profits.
> >
> > Should this benefit be redistributed to the local/regional authorities,
> and
> > if so, what is the basis for calculating the amount to be returned to
> them?
> >
> > Andrew
>
>
> This is still actually an issue for central govts too. There's no reason
> why
> the people making money out of a country's data live in or are incorporated
> in the country...
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2lt5YuJp69RRM6CU5HMqgf
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
[edits: removed top-posting, fixed line break errors]
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Tim McNamara <email obscured>
> >wrote:
> > On 31 July 2010 22:07, Andrew Ecclestone <email obscured>> wrote:
> > > Presumably one of the other difficulties faced at the local and
> regional
> > > level is that while the cost of collecting/buying the data is met
> from rates
> > > collected locally, the economic benefit of enabling free re-use by
> others is
> > > gained by central government, in the form of taxes on company profits.
> > > Should this benefit be redistributed to the local/regional
> authorities, and
> > > if so, what is the basis for calculating the amount to be returned
> to them?
> > >
> > > Andrew
> >
> > This is still actually an issue for central govts too. There's no reason
> > why the people making money out of a country's data live in or are
> incorporated
> > in the country...
>
On 1 August 2010 13:12, Jim McLeod <email obscured>> wrote:
> What is meant by "country's data"?
> Data about the natural and physical resources?
> Data bout the financial shenanigans?
> Data about something else..
By country's data I mean anything that a public agency holds. Schedule 1 & 2
of the State Sector Act is a fairly good list of what I mean in the New
Zealand's context. As those agencies make data available, they incur
expenses [1] by releasing it, but they have no opportunity to reclaim those
costs under an open access model.
One general argument is that it's possible to reclaim those expenses if the
net Crown balance sheet is taken into account. For example, if a New
Zealand-based business makes a very good planning tool based on interplaying
lots of data, the Crown receives revenue via GST & income tax.
However, if a business based in Singapore has a planning tool that it adapts
it to suit the NZ data, the govt of Singapore receives tax revenue. The New
Zealand tax payer loses three times: 1) one of its agencies is incurring
costs & therefore less effective, 2) NZ govt is incurring costs for no
revenue, meaning that tax rates are unable to be lowered 3) as a consumer,
that tax payer pays to consume the services of the overseas business.
Tim
[1] Some of those expenses include administration, electricity, bandwidth,
plant & the opportunity cost of computation & storage. Therefore, if
businesses from outside of the jurisdiction of
I think that Nat has nailed it in highlighting some of the benefits of
taking an Investment approach as opposed to a Cost Minimisation one. I
chuckled (actually I laughed out loud) at his characterisation of Local Govt
IT Managers as an unhappy lot, mostly because I was one twice and the
characterisation fits (humour is the unexpected revelation of truth). I
suspect that most Local Govt IT Managers are unhappy folks because of the
very same things that we are talking about at the Council level, namely that
their management mandate is a cost-minimisation one where their departments
are seen as a necessary cost centre that the other Council departments have
to bear.
I am fortunate that I had the support that allowed me to take the alternate
approach and so was able to transform the IT function
within the organisation that I worked at the time into that of being an
enabler rather than purely a cost centre.
This discussion about LG IT Managers is relevant to the wider discussion
about Open Data and Open Govt because who ever has that role in the new
Auckland Council will have a job description and a series of performance
Measures against which they will be measured. I think that in addition
to the new Council having a mandate for Open Govt it should have a
corresponding mandate for economic and social enablement and that these two
mandates should appear very prominently in the performance measures
of the IT Manager/Director of the new city.
I should also cover off on a personal note: I left LG IT Management long
before John joined ARC and so please don't presume that I am characterising
John as an unhappy LG IT Manager. As it happens, I do know John from before
he was at ARC and I would be very surprised if he was in this mould. I am
very pleased that someone of John's calibre, foresight and professionalism
is leading ARC IT in the run-up to the amalgamation and I hope that
he will be around in the new Council to continue to lead them in the areas
of Open Govt and enablement through ready access to data.
Doug Hunt
On 1 August 2010 12:51, Nathan Torkington <email obscured>> wrote:
> On 29/07/2010, at 9:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
> > We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
> > recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
> > approach.
>
> That's fantastic news, and from what I know it would put Auckland out
> in front. Are you hiring? :-)
>
> (Apologies for the long note, I didn't have time to make it shorter)
>
> I've enjoyed the discussion we've had so far. I think that Andrew hit
> the nail on the head with the observation that local government
> doesn't have the same mission or funding as central government. With
> central government, "we're here to help" -- as much as we mock that
> sentiment, all but Libertarians feel there is some appropriate role
> for central government. So we pay taxes to fund that. However, local
> government is funded by property taxes and their self-image is oddly
> skewed too.
>
> I was very surprised, when I spoke at the Association of Local
> Government IT Managers conference, at the lack of joy in their life.
> From what I can tell, it seems widespread in all layers of councils--
> nobody has a positive image of their role. Central government's all
> about raising GDP, cushioning the rough blows of life, educating kids,
> providing equity and opportunity. What is local government about?
> Rates, roads, sewers, and shitloads of paperwork every time you want
> to put a shed on your property or cut down a tree.
>
> This leads to viewing central government as an expensive burden,
> something to be minimized and offset as much as possible. So everyone
> feels guilty about taking ratepayer money, about spending it, about
> doing any kind of "good" with it because they don't see themselves as
> a good. They see themselves as caretakers of expensive infrastructure
> and hated rules, and data is incidental to this mission. This leads
> to reclaiming $ from data sales, it leads to an effort to claw back
> every last penny generated by data, it leads to lock-down and hold-out
> policies as data opportunities are thrown away to minimise the funding
> harm to infrastructure. (John's policies are much better than most--
> this isn't a dig at him)
>
> I prefer to look at councils from the other side. Their role in
> society is an enormously positive one: the economic benefits of roads
> and transportation are huge, they are the front-line for protecting
> and preserving our natural and urban environment, and they manage the
> urban development incentives and controls that can substantially
> improve job and life opportunities for residents. I'm glad to pay for
> that.
>
> If local government views its overall role positively (to create
> economic opportunity and to protect and preserve the environment), I
> think they can stop looking at their tools as simply sewers and roads
> and regulations. I think data can take its place there, because data
> can be used to create economic opportunity and help citizens protect
> and preserve the environment.
>
> Once you make this mind shift, I think you lose the idea that non-
> commercial is the way to go. As Glen pointed out, "commercial" isn't
> a black-and-white line. In fact, CC are still trying to figure out
> what "non-commercial" actually means. I think it's irrelevant. Once
> you accept the role of economic maximisation rather than cost
> reduction, the idea that every piece of value will be captured or
> ticket-clipped by the council goes out the window. The opportunity
> cost and lost value from transaction costs and increased barrier to
> entry (if you need a $12k data license, you stop people from starting
> projects that might offer value in the long term) dwarf the loss of
> revenue ... I LGOIMAed the revenue from data sales from Auckland City
> Council, and it's bugger all.
>
> But that switch has to flip; people have to begin thinking of council
> as a positive opportunity not a negative cost. I'm keen to know how
> we can make that change. Of course, my take on the situation might
> also be wrong--I'm keen to know if that's the case, too!
>
> Cheers;
>
> Nat
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/7kqJP0Z0YXzGGF7PJwFZoq
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
Hi
This is a really interesting thread that has touched on many things, not
least the importance of local government data to every day citizens. It
is easy to over look local govt because they are not central. In other
words, you have to deal with all of them, individually, to get what you
want at a national level. But worth the effort, I think.
> As I said in another response, why should what is open source data be
> treated any differently to OS code? (this is my personal view!)
>
> If I provide data under BY-NC-SA then those wanting to have a business
> based on the data should look, possibly, to one based on professional
> services, as many OSS companies do.
I don't profess to understand data licensing issues as well as I do
software licensing issues. But, there are very practical reasons to
think about why a GPL type licence should be considered for open data.
One example is the DoC walking routes data. DoC have released this
information however its accuracy is patchy and they have grades for its
accuracy.
A private company puts that data on GPS devices and people use those to
guide them along NZ walks. This is a win.
What is not clear is what happens to corrections to the data -
information that actual walkers can supply back to the seller of GPS
devices to make the route data more accurate.
The private seller could keep that and use it as a competitive
advantage. But a greater good would come if the corrected data was
supplier back to the DoC. The greater good also has a private benefit in
that the seller of GPS devices is not having to maintain a "fork" and
constantly fix or merger their own private data sets into the main data
set.
Of course, this incentive is more palatable if they know that the data
is licensed in such a way that their potential competitors will also be
doing the same thing.
Does this make sense? Interested in feedback.
On 1/08/2010, at 2:14 PM, Doug Hunt wrote:
> I think that in addition
> to the new Council having a mandate for Open Govt it should have a
> corresponding mandate for economic and social enablement
Aside from the self-evident truth that all governments exist for the
benefit of the people and not vice versa, such statements are littered
throughout our legislation.
The Local Government Act (2002) states the purpose of councils:
> 10. The purpose of local government is
> (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on
> behalf of, communities; and
> (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural
> well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM171803.html
and
> 14(1) In performing its role, a local authority must act in
> accordance with the following principles:
> (a) a local authority should
> (i) conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically
> accountable manner; and
> (ii) give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes
> in an efficient and effective manner:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM171810.html
There are similar references in other legislation relating to the
councils, e.g. the Principle of Availability in the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act:
> 5. Principle of availability
> The question whether any official information is to be made
> available, where that question arises under this Act, shall be
> determined, except where this Act otherwise expressly requires, in
> accordance with the purposes of this Act and the principle that the
> information shall be made available unless there is good reason for
> withholding it.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0174/latest/DLM122285.html
Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
dataset".
This could also include information about track conditions etc
DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with another
organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track dataset" that
is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a company
say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be sold as
optional extras.
I am working on an official dataset that would be something along these
lines - not DOC tracks however.
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
> Hi
>
> This is a really interesting thread that has touched on many things, not
> least the importance of local government data to every day citizens. It
> is easy to over look local govt because they are not central. In other
> words, you have to deal with all of them, individually, to get what you
> want at a national level. But worth the effort, I think.
>
> > As I said in another response, why should what is open source data be
> > treated any differently to OS code? (this is my personal view!)
> >
> > If I provide data under BY-NC-SA then those wanting to have a business
> > based on the data should look, possibly, to one based on professional
> > services, as many OSS companies do.
>
> I don't profess to understand data licensing issues as well as I do
> software licensing issues. But, there are very practical reasons to
> think about why a GPL type licence should be considered for open data.
>
> One example is the DoC walking routes data. DoC have released this
> information however its accuracy is patchy and they have grades for its
> accuracy.
>
> A private company puts that data on GPS devices and people use those to
> guide them along NZ walks. This is a win.
>
> What is not clear is what happens to corrections to the data -
> information that actual walkers can supply back to the seller of GPS
> devices to make the route data more accurate.
>
> The private seller could keep that and use it as a competitive
> advantage. But a greater good would come if the corrected data was
> supplier back to the DoC. The greater good also has a private benefit in
> that the seller of GPS devices is not having to maintain a "fork" and
> constantly fix or merger their own private data sets into the main data
> set.
>
> Of course, this incentive is more palatable if they know that the data
> is licensed in such a way that their potential competitors will also be
> doing the same thing.
>
> Does this make sense? Interested in feedback.
>
> Cheers
> Don
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qgduXbQeuHLl2WFyBuV7t
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's own
tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward is
how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each Regional,
District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
"built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly marked
trails, etc.
* note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
> Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
> They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
> source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
> dataset".
> This could also include information about track conditions etc
>
> DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
> another
> organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
> dataset" that
> is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
> company
> say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
> sold as
> optional extras.
>
> I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
> these
> lines - not DOC tracks however.
>
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> This is a really interesting thread that has touched on many
>> things, not
>> least the importance of local government data to every day
>> citizens. It
>> is easy to over look local govt because they are not central. In
>> other
>> words, you have to deal with all of them, individually, to get what
>> you
>> want at a national level. But worth the effort, I think.
>>
>>> As I said in another response, why should what is open source data
>>> be
>>> treated any differently to OS code? (this is my personal view!)
>>>
>>> If I provide data under BY-NC-SA then those wanting to have a
>>> business
>>> based on the data should look, possibly, to one based on
>>> professional
>>> services, as many OSS companies do.
>>
>> I don't profess to understand data licensing issues as well as I do
>> software licensing issues. But, there are very practical reasons to
>> think about why a GPL type licence should be considered for open
>> data.
>>
>> One example is the DoC walking routes data. DoC have released this
>> information however its accuracy is patchy and they have grades for
>> its
>> accuracy.
>>
>> A private company puts that data on GPS devices and people use
>> those to
>> guide them along NZ walks. This is a win.
>>
>> What is not clear is what happens to corrections to the data -
>> information that actual walkers can supply back to the seller of GPS
>> devices to make the route data more accurate.
>>
>> The private seller could keep that and use it as a competitive
>> advantage. But a greater good would come if the corrected data was
>> supplier back to the DoC. The greater good also has a private
>> benefit in
>> that the seller of GPS devices is not having to maintain a "fork" and
>> constantly fix or merger their own private data sets into the main
>> data
>> set.
>>
>> Of course, this incentive is more palatable if they know that the
>> data
>> is licensed in such a way that their potential competitors will
>> also be
>> doing the same thing.
>>
>> Does this make sense? Interested in feedback.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Don
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qgduXbQeuHLl2WFyBuV7t
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/469iceWVaanmLDhu6fkhQc
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
So this is where open data should be able to reduce costs by avoiding
duplication within government. If the departments and local and regional
councils can publish data in an open and standard format then they should be
able to work together on processes to reduce duplication of work and come up
with a dataset that kicks arse in terms of quality. The bonus is that the
public get to piggy back on this work and have access to the data ourselves
with zero extra cost to the taxpayer. And the double bonus is that implementing
a feedback loop should also be a lot easier to accomplish.
Glen
On 1/08/2010, at 6:21 PM, Ed Corkery wrote:
> LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
> intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
> dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
> or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
> track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's own
> tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward is
> how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
>
> The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each Regional,
> District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
> trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
> "built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
> infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly marked
> trails, etc.
>
> * note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
>
> On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
>
>> Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
>> They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
>> source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
>> dataset".
>> This could also include information about track conditions etc
>>
>> DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
>> another
>> organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
>> dataset" that
>> is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
>> company
>> say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
>> sold as
>> optional extras.
>>
>> I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
>> these
>> lines - not DOC tracks however.
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
>>
Which kind of highlights the issue "who has the authoritative dataset?"
You would think that after at least 2 years of niggle some-one would have *
told* LINZ and DOC where the stewardship for this dataset lies and conflated
the two CG sets to create the definitive set and moved on.
Of course any private initiative gets stymie because it isn't
"authoritative".
As for imagery LG and CG had an opportunity around the KiwiImage Project.
However, it wasn't a big enough pain for the relevant CEOs to put the effort
into to resolve. Hence the present cat's breakfast.
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Ed Corkery <email obscured>>wrote:
> LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
> intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
> dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
> or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
> track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's own
> tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward is
> how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
>
> The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each Regional,
> District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
> trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
> "built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
> infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly marked
> trails, etc.
>
> * note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
>
> On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
>
> > Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
> > They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
> > source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
> > dataset".
> > This could also include information about track conditions etc
> >
> > DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
> > another
> > organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
> > dataset" that
> > is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
> > company
> > say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
> > sold as
> > optional extras.
> >
> > I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
> > these
> > lines - not DOC tracks however.
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> This is a really interesting thread that has touched on many
> >> things, not
> >> least the importance of local government data to every day
> >> citizens. It
> >> is easy to over look local govt because they are not central. In
> >> other
> >> words, you have to deal with all of them, individually, to get what
> >> you
> >> want at a national level. But worth the effort, I think.
> >>
> >>> As I said in another response, why should what is open source data
> >>> be
> >>> treated any differently to OS code? (this is my personal view!)
> >>>
> >>> If I provide data under BY-NC-SA then those wanting to have a
> >>> business
> >>> based on the data should look, possibly, to one based on
> >>> professional
> >>> services, as many OSS companies do.
> >>
> >> I don't profess to understand data licensing issues as well as I do
> >> software licensing issues. But, there are very practical reasons to
> >> think about why a GPL type licence should be considered for open
> >> data.
> >>
> >> One example is the DoC walking routes data. DoC have released this
> >> information however its accuracy is patchy and they have grades for
> >> its
> >> accuracy.
> >>
> >> A private company puts that data on GPS devices and people use
> >> those to
> >> guide them along NZ walks. This is a win.
> >>
> >> What is not clear is what happens to corrections to the data -
> >> information that actual walkers can supply back to the seller of GPS
> >> devices to make the route data more accurate.
> >>
> >> The private seller could keep that and use it as a competitive
> >> advantage. But a greater good would come if the corrected data was
> >> supplier back to the DoC. The greater good also has a private
> >> benefit in
> >> that the seller of GPS devices is not having to maintain a "fork" and
> >> constantly fix or merger their own private data sets into the main
> >> data
> >> set.
> >>
> >> Of course, this incentive is more palatable if they know that the
> >> data
> >> is licensed in such a way that their potential competitors will
> >> also be
> >> doing the same thing.
> >>
> >> Does this make sense? Interested in feedback.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Don
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------
> >> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> >> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qgduXbQeuHLl2WFyBuV7t
> >>
> >> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> >> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >>
> >> Start your own free groups and site with
> >> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >>
> >> Host your own online groups site with
> >> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
> >>
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/469iceWVaanmLDhu6fkhQc
> >
> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > Start your own free groups and site with
> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >
> > Host your own online groups site with
> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3wIFetDMSmbKvy4lvQr3SV
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
And that is certainly what we have been doing in Auckland. We effectively have
a regional Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) where we are doing exactly what
you say in terms of high quality, publicly available data.
The cost though is not zero - the cost for SDI infrastructure is significant.
We are talking of costs in the 100s of thousands of dollars to deliver our data
sets publicly. (we wouldn't need all the additional server/Internet capability
we have if we weren't making our data public)
But we know that this is an investment in economic development for Auckland.
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
Sent from my iPad
On 1/08/2010, at 6:34 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
> So this is where open data should be able to reduce costs by avoiding
duplication within government. If the departments and local and regional
councils can publish data in an open and standard format then they should be
able to work together on processes to reduce duplication of work and come up
with a dataset that kicks arse in terms of quality. The bonus is that the
public get to piggy back on this work and have access to the data ourselves
with zero extra cost to the taxpayer. And the double bonus is that implementing
a feedback loop should also be a lot easier to accomplish.
>
> Glen
>
> On 1/08/2010, at 6:21 PM, Ed Corkery wrote
>> LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
>> intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
>> dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
>> or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
>> track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's own
>> tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward is
>> how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
>>
>> The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each Regional,
>> District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
>> trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
>> "built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
>> infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly marked
>> trails, etc.
>>
>> * note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
>>
>> On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
>>> They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
>>> source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
>>> dataset".
>>> This could also include information about track conditions etc
>>>
>>> DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
>>> another
>>> organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
>>> dataset" that
>>> is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
>>> company
>>> say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
>>> sold as
>>> optional extras.
>>>
>>> I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
>>> these
>>> lines - not DOC tracks however.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/7jxBJWR8tLwaN6pRnhHM6O
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Also KiwiImage is of a lower quality than what we have...
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
Sent from my iPad
On 1/08/2010, at 6:38 PM, Jim McLeod <email obscured>> wrote:
> Which kind of highlights the issue "who has the authoritative dataset?"
> You would think that after at least 2 years of niggle some-one would have *
> told* LINZ and DOC where the stewardship for this dataset lies and conflated
> the two CG sets to create the definitive set and moved on.
> Of course any private initiative gets stymie because it isn't
> "authoritative".
>
> As for imagery LG and CG had an opportunity around the KiwiImage Project.
> However, it wasn't a big enough pain for the relevant CEOs to put the effort
> into to resolve. Hence the present cat's breakfast.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Ed Corkery <email obscured>>wrote:
>
>> LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
>> intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
>> dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
>> or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
>> track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's own
>> tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward is
>> how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
>>
>> The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each Regional,
>> District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
>> trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
>> "built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
>> infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly marked
>> trails, etc.
>>
>> * note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
>>
>> On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
>>> They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
>>> source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
>>> dataset".
>>> This could also include information about track conditions etc
>>>
>>> DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
>>> another
>>> organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
>>> dataset" that
>>> is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
>>> company
>>> say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
>>> sold as
>>> optional extras.
>>>
>>> I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
>>> these
>>> lines - not DOC tracks however.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> This is a really interesting thread that has touched on many
>>>> things, not
>>>> least the importance of local government data to every day
>>>> citizens. It
>>>> is easy to over look local govt because they are not central. In
>>>> other
>>>> words, you have to deal with all of them, individually, to get what
>>>> you
>>>> want at a national level. But worth the effort, I think.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said in another response, why should what is open source data
>>>>> be
>>>>> treated any differently to OS code? (this is my personal view!)
>>>>>
>>>>> If I provide data under BY-NC-SA then those wanting to have a
>>>>> business
>>>>> based on the data should look, possibly, to one based on
>>>>> professional
>>>>> services, as many OSS companies do.
>>>>
>>>> I don't profess to understand data licensing issues as well as I do
>>>> software licensing issues. But, there are very practical reasons to
>>>> think about why a GPL type licence should be considered for open
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> One example is the DoC walking routes data. DoC have released this
>>>> information however its accuracy is patchy and they have grades for
>>>> its
>>>> accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> A private company puts that data on GPS devices and people use
>>>> those to
>>>> guide them along NZ walks. This is a win.
>>>>
>>>> What is not clear is what happens to corrections to the data -
>>>> information that actual walkers can supply back to the seller of GPS
>>>> devices to make the route data more accurate.
>>>>
>>>> The private seller could keep that and use it as a competitive
>>>> advantage. But a greater good would come if the corrected data was
>>>> supplier back to the DoC. The greater good also has a private
>>>> benefit in
>>>> that the seller of GPS devices is not having to maintain a "fork" and
>>>> constantly fix or merger their own private data sets into the main
>>>> data
>>>> set.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this incentive is more palatable if they know that the
>>>> data
>>>> is licensed in such a way that their potential competitors will
>>>> also be
>>>> doing the same thing.
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense? Interested in feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2qgduXbQeuHLl2WFyBuV7t
>>>>
>>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>>
>>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>>
>>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/469iceWVaanmLDhu6fkhQc
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3wIFetDMSmbKvy4lvQr3SV
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/462iKl2EOkYgwMx70zSPBF
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
On 1/08/2010, at 12:51 PM, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> On 29/07/2010, at 9:29 PM, John Holley wrote:
>> We know about the inconsistencies and a paper has gone forward with
>> recommendations for the supercity - basically saying take a open.gov
>> approach.
>
> That's fantastic news, and from what I know it would put Auckland out
> in front. Are you hiring? :-)
No, but as I won't be in the new Council is anyone else hiring? :)
> <snip>
>
> I was very surprised, when I spoke at the Association of Local
> Government IT Managers conference, at the lack of joy in their life.
> From what I can tell, it seems widespread in all layers of councils--
> nobody has a positive image of their role. Central government's all
> about raising GDP, cushioning the rough blows of life, educating kids,
> providing equity and opportunity. What is local government about?
> Rates, roads, sewers, and shitloads of paperwork every time you want
> to put a shed on your property or cut down a tree.
I think this is the challenge I found moving into Local Govt three years ago -
most councils don't really seem to want their IT Managers/CIOs to be
visionaries. Folk talk about risk aversion - that is not right - council
managers tend to be "risk avoiders".
To move to an open.gov framework is a big move away from the "knowledge is
power as long as you keep it to yourself" paradigm bureaucrats are use to. It
takes courage and a leadership that lets staff make mistakes - and a public
that won't crucify council staff when they take risks that fail (not gambles).
There is a difference between charging for a professional service e.g. planning
or resource consents submissions, to charging for data sets that you have
modified in some manner which were provided for you for free.
Again, I use the open source code comparison. As a company I am free to use
code to make money via services but if I add/modify the code and then try to
sell it I am probably breaking the license terms of the code. I like to treat
data like code :)
This is one for a discussion over beer on Wednesday!
John
On 31/07/2010, at 10:00 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:
>>
>> What we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the
data more freely available for end users than it ever was. Academic
institutions, engineering and planning companies have consistently told us how
much money and effort we have saved them.
>
> So planning companies can use the data for free? How is this not commercial
use and resale of the data? Any use for any commercial gain means it is
commercial. You used some data to compile a report that you charged a client
for? Commercial. You put up a website with some aggregated data and put some
google adsense ads next to it? Commercial.
>
> I have no problems with others making money from the datasets if it makes my
life easier. I will happily give a Dev a couple of bucks for an iPhone app that
has bus times if it makes my life easier.
>
> The core thing that makes the really interesting stuff possible still comes
back to free in cost and free is use.
I think there is a misunderstanding about my zero cost argument. The additional
cost of providing it to the public above and beyond the internal data swapping
between departments is close to zero. If you have to provide the service to
fulfil internal use anyway then opening up the data to external use should be
very little cost. Definitely not 100s of thousands just to add this data. The
world is moving very quickly to cloud based services with super cheap storage
and bandwidth pricing which is perfect to cache the public facing datasets.
If we are talking about aerial imagery then yes - cost becomes an issue but
this can be mitigated by charging cost recovery on that data. Case in point is
Northland Regional Council. Most layers on Koordinates are free but you pay a
small amount for the aerial imagery -
http://koordinates.com/#/maps/northland/layers/. $157 dollars TOTAL for all of
the aerial imagery delivered on DVD by courier. The great thing is that the
service is super simple for the layperson to use (i.e. me) and I can get the
data I want instantly and very easily (No flash based map site which is really
hard to use). A few clicks and it is ordered/downloaded in a variety of formats
including Google Earth which is perfect for mashups or GIS formats for the
pros.
This would make a really great live debate at some point!
Glen
On 1/08/2010, at 7:10 PM, John Holley wrote:
> And that is certainly what we have been doing in Auckland. We effectively
have a regional Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) where we are doing exactly
what you say in terms of high quality, publicly available data.
>
> The cost though is not zero - the cost for SDI infrastructure is significant.
We are talking of costs in the 100s of thousands of dollars to deliver our data
sets publicly. (we wouldn't need all the additional server/Internet capability
we have if we weren't making our data public)
>
> But we know that this is an investment in economic development for Auckland.
>
> John
>
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 1/08/2010, at 6:34 PM, Glen Barnes <email obscured>> wrote:
>
>> So this is where open data should be able to reduce costs by avoiding
duplication within government. If the departments and local and regional
councils can publish data in an open and standard format then they should be
able to work together on processes to reduce duplication of work and come up
with a dataset that kicks arse in terms of quality. The bonus is that the
public get to piggy back on this work and have access to the data ourselves
with zero extra cost to the taxpayer. And the double bonus is that implementing
a feedback loop should also be a lot easier to accomplish.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>> On 1/08/2010, at 6:21 PM, Ed Corkery wrote
>>> LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
>>> intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
>>> dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
>>> or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
>>> track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's own
>>> tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward is
>>> how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
>>>
>>> The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each Regional,
>>> District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
>>> trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
>>> "built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
>>> infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly marked
>>> trails, etc.
>>>
>>> * note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
>>>
>>> On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
>>>> They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from any
>>>> source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
>>>> dataset".
>>>> This could also include information about track conditions etc
>>>>
>>>> DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
>>>> another
>>>> organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
>>>> dataset" that
>>>> is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
>>>> company
>>>> say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
>>>> sold as
>>>> optional extras.
>>>>
>>>> I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
>>>> these
>>>> lines - not DOC tracks however.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/7jxBJWR8tLwaN6pRnhHM6O
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/19lJ1WxV90bfuf6CARN1oF
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Sure. The agencies would love to get council data "for free" (in terms
of $ and hassle). Typically they get it for free anyway, it's just
they don't know who to contact, and who can be bothered with the
hassle of negotiating with staff at 70-odd councils, several non-
profit trusts, NZDF, etc. That's almost a full-time job by itself; it
would be much more rational and efficient to download datasets from
each without first negotiating with a human being.
This takes us back to the 2nd topic of this thread: the ARC and their
online mapping Flash site. As is typical for an off-the-shelf ESRI
solution, it has no data download facility but does come with REST
API's for accessing "vector" data. So the professional geospatial data
is already sitting there on the Internet, but Google Earth, GIS and
CAD people (those who actually plan, build and maintain Auckland)
can't get it due to the limited nature of the ARC Flash site. For some
inexplicable reason, the ALGGi committee decided to prevent
Koordinates from taking this data and making it freely downloadable by
anyone. They apparently disliked what we intended to do so much that
they actually added a clause under a custom tab in their Flash site
specifically blocking scraping (we're an Auckland-based company, by
the way). After spending significant ratepayer cash deploying their
geospatial data server in the first place, they expended further
effort to remove the "data" part.
Wellington City Council has exactly the same ESRI server software, but
they've indicated we're free to grab data via their REST API's
whenever we need to. Of course, we don't actually need to: they're
actively uploading data to Koordinates themselves so it can be
distributed for free to Wellington ratepayers. And lo, the world did
not spontaneously explode into a ball of flame.
* for geo-newbies: ALGGi is a bulk-buying group and committee of
geospatial staff from all seven Auckland region councils, though North
Shore City Council avoided participating.
On 1/08/2010, at 6:34 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:
> So this is where open data should be able to reduce costs by
> avoiding duplication within government. If the departments and local
> and regional councils can publish data in an open and standard
> format then they should be able to work together on processes to
> reduce duplication of work and come up with a dataset that kicks
> arse in terms of quality. The bonus is that the public get to piggy
> back on this work and have access to the data ourselves with zero
> extra cost to the taxpayer. And the double bonus is that
> implementing a feedback loop should also be a lot easier to
> accomplish.
>
> Glen
>
> On 1/08/2010, at 6:21 PM, Ed Corkery wrote:
>
>> LINZ is the custodian of national track layers, but they're primarily
>> intended for cartographic use in their topographic map series. Their
>> dataset quality specifications were not designed with GPS navigation
>> or geospatial analysis in mind. Saying that, LINZ staff believe their
>> track data is better for some areas of DOC managed land than DOC's
>> own
>> tracks layer, and vice versa. One of the big problems going forward
>> is
>> how to merge these existing parallel datasets, if at all.
>>
>> The LINZ layers in theory cover DOC tracks, tracks from each
>> Regional,
>> District and Unitary Council, as well as tracks on privately-held and
>> trust land. LINZ also endeavour to map a wider variety of tracks:
>> "built" walking tracks, 4WD tracks, access tracks to rural
>> infrastructure like cell sites and Transpower equipment, poorly
>> marked
>> trails, etc.
>>
>> * note - DoC = Department of Corrections, in NZ agency usage.
>>
>> On 1/08/2010, at 5:25 PM, Jim McLeod wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally DOC should be the steward of the DOC track data.
>>> They should be able to consider proposed updated track data (from
>>> any
>>> source) and when validated appropriately update their "authoritative
>>> dataset".
>>> This could also include information about track conditions etc
>>>
>>> DOC of course could vest the stewardship of the track data with
>>> another
>>> organisation, but there should be one "authoritative DOC track
>>> dataset" that
>>> is freely & publicly available. Of course this wouldn't prevent a
>>> company
>>> say including their own POIs, or trackview video etc that would be
>>> sold as
>>> optional extras.
>>>
>>> I am working on an official dataset that would be something along
>>> these
>>> lines - not DOC tracks however.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Don <email obscured>> wrote:
>>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/7jxBJWR8tLwaN6pRnhHM6O
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
I was using Creative Commons clauses as they are part of NZGOAL...
<http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/information-and-data/nzgoal-framework>
Which is where I presume most of us would like to see central and local
government support and work with :)
I also don't think there was any conflict between my two statements. If I
provide code under NZGOAL and I say NC, then that is just the way it is. Folk
are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the terms.
Cheers
John
On 31/07/2010, at 10:09 PM, Gordon wrote:
>> OSS code that we develop at the ARC is normally provided under BY-NC-SA and
I
>> feel data should be the same.
>
> That seems a bit odd, frankly.
>
> Even the Creative Commons folk say: "Creative Commons licenses should not be
used for software"
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#Can_I_license_software_using_CC_licenses.3F
).
>
> And I don't want to get onto a "Free Software" Vs "OSS" debate, but I find
these statements quite hard to reconcile this:
>
>> I do though struggle with others being able to
>> charge for IP that I provide for free which they may
>> modify/ reuse in some way."
>
> with this:
>
>> I am a huge OSS proponent...
>
>
> Having said that, I do applaud (and sympathise with) this sentiment: "What we
have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the data more
freely available for end users than it ever was."
On 1 August 2010 19:36, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> Again, I use the open source code comparison. As a company I am free to use
code to make money via services but if I add/modify the code and then try to
sell it I am probably breaking the license terms of the code.
Sorry to be blunt, but as a general statement that is simply wrong.
On 1/08/2010, at 7:10 PM, John Holley wrote:
> And that is certainly what we have been doing in Auckland. We
> effectively have a regional Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) where
> we are doing exactly what you say in terms of high quality, publicly
> available data.
No, ARC/ALGGi has explicitly blocked access to the data. It's already
sitting there on the Internet, but via legal means your council
blocked access to it.
> The cost though is not zero - the cost for SDI infrastructure is
> significant. We are talking of costs in the 100s of thousands of
> dollars to deliver our data sets publicly. (we wouldn't need all the
> additional server/Internet capability we have if we weren't making
> our data public)
Well, this statement raises a whole bunch of alarming questions. Was
there an RFP for this?
On 1/08/2010, at 7:38 PM, Glen Barnes wrote:
> I think there is a misunderstanding about my zero cost argument. The
additional cost of providing it to the public above and beyond the internal
data swapping between departments is close to zero. If you have to provide the
service to fulfil internal use anyway then opening up the data to external use
should be very little cost. Definitely not 100s of thousands just to add this
data. The world is moving very quickly to cloud based services with super cheap
storage and bandwidth pricing which is perfect to cache the public facing
datasets.
>
Sorry, but the cost to providing this data to the public, as we do now, is
significant over what is required for internal use. I pay the bills so I know
how much storage we need, how much bandwidth we pay for to make the data freely
available - it is not cheap! It literally is 100s of thousands.
> If we are talking about aerial imagery then yes - cost becomes an issue but
this can be mitigated by charging cost recovery on that data. Case in point is
Northland Regional Council. Most layers on Koordinates are free but you pay a
small amount for the aerial imagery -
http://koordinates.com/#/maps/northland/layers/. $157 dollars TOTAL for all of
the aerial imagery delivered on DVD by courier. The great thing is that the
service is super simple for the layperson to use (i.e. me) and I can get the
data I want instantly and very easily (No flash based map site which is really
hard to use). A few clicks and it is ordered/downloaded in a variety of formats
including Google Earth which is perfect for mashups or GIS formats for the
pros.
For the Auckland Region firms doing GIS just point their GIS clients at the SDI
and have the required layers dynamically loaded as and when required - the GIS
pros seem to prefer this to having to order physical media etc.! :)
The $157 I suspect is not for cost recovery on the data but to cover
Koordinates costs. As the cost for imagery for the Auckland region is serveral
hundred thousand dollars every few years you would have to see a lot of DVDs!
As to the flash challenge, it is the first cut for anything like this in NZ,
but you will see the interface improve over time. Several of the regional
councils have a collaborative project to develop the viewer so it will just get
better (especially with ESRI ARC Serve 10). The goal is, over time, to make it
as google like as possible, while meeting the broad range of business
requirements we need to meet. (What most folk forget is the legal liability
councils carry of accuracy of information they provide - something Google
doesn't have to worry about)
Sorry Gordon but can you explain?
John
On 1/08/2010, at 7:50 PM, Gordon Paynter wrote:
> On 1 August 2010 19:36, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>> Again, I use the open source code comparison. As a company I am free to use
code to make money via services but if I add/modify the code and then try to
sell it I am probably breaking the license terms of the code.
Hi John:
I refer you to the NZGOAL document that you cite:
"8 While NZGOAL does apply to datasets, it does not apply to software
which, for example, an agency owns and may wish to release on open
source terms. In such circumstances open source software licences are
more appropriate than the NZGOAL licences."
I suggest you reconsider using CC licenses for code, and move to a
Free Software license.
(If you're committed non-commercial use only, then you should be aware
that almost all free and open source licenses allow commercial use,
but I'm sure there are people on the list who can identify
non-commercial-but-open-source licenses.)
Gordon
On 1 August 2010 19:45, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> I was using Creative Commons clauses as they are part of NZGOAL...
<http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/information-and-data/nzgoal-framework>
>
> Which is where I presume most of us would like to see central and local
government support and work with :)
>
> I also don't think there was any conflict between my two statements. If I
provide code under NZGOAL and I say NC, then that is just the way it is. Folk
are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the terms.
>
> Cheers
>
> John
>
> On 31/07/2010, at 10:09 PM, Gordon wrote:
>
>>> OSS code that we develop at the ARC is normally provided under BY-NC-SA and
I
>>> feel data should be the same.
>>
>> That seems a bit odd, frankly.
>>
>> Even the Creative Commons folk say: "Creative Commons licenses should not be
used for software"
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#Can_I_license_software_using_CC_licenses.3F
).
>>
>> And I don't want to get onto a "Free Software" Vs "OSS" debate, but I find
these statements quite hard to reconcile this:
>>
>>> I do though struggle with others being able to
>>> charge for IP that I provide for free which they may
>>> modify/ reuse in some way."
>>
>> with this:
>>
>>> I am a huge OSS proponent...
>>
>>
>> Having said that, I do applaud (and sympathise with) this sentiment: "What
we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the data
more freely available for end users than it ever was."
On 1/08/2010, at 8:01 PM, Ed Corkery wrote:
> On 1/08/2010, at 7:10 PM, John Holley wrote:
>
>> And that is certainly what we have been doing in Auckland. We
>> effectively have a regional Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) where
>> we are doing exactly what you say in terms of high quality, publicly
>> available data.
>
> No, ARC/ALGGi has explicitly blocked access to the data. It's already
> sitting there on the Internet, but via legal means your council
> blocked access to it.
Blocked or made companies comply with the copyright limitations imposed on us?
>
>> The cost though is not zero - the cost for SDI infrastructure is
>> significant. We are talking of costs in the 100s of thousands of
>> dollars to deliver our data sets publicly. (we wouldn't need all the
>> additional server/Internet capability we have if we weren't making
>> our data public)
>
> Well, this statement raises a whole bunch of alarming questions. Was
> there an RFP for this?
RFP for what Ed? Expanded storage? Upgraded servers? Happy to answer
questions.
As you are aware Ed, we are bound by conditions imposed on us - it is not
inexplicable but commercial constraints that we have to meet.
ALGGi are just operating under the directives of the CE Forum for Auckland.
John
On 1/08/2010, at 7:45 PM, Ed Corkery wrote:
> This takes us back to the 2nd topic of this thread: the ARC and their
> online mapping Flash site. As is typical for an off-the-shelf ESRI
> solution, it has no data download facility but does come with REST
> API's for accessing "vector" data. So the professional geospatial data
> is already sitting there on the Internet, but Google Earth, GIS and
> CAD people (those who actually plan, build and maintain Auckland)
> can't get it due to the limited nature of the ARC Flash site. For some
> inexplicable reason, the ALGGi committee decided to prevent
> Koordinates from taking this data and making it freely downloadable by
> anyone. They apparently disliked what we intended to do so much that
> they actually added a clause under a custom tab in their Flash site
> specifically blocking scraping (we're an Auckland-based company, by
> the way). After spending significant ratepayer cash deploying their
> geospatial data server in the first place, they expended further
> effort to remove the "data" part.
Which is what I was meaning, and sorry if I was not clear. Giving the CC code
summarises a lot, succinctly.
We use SSC licenses.
John
On 1/08/2010, at 8:06 PM, Gordon Paynter wrote:
> Hi John:
>
> I refer you to the NZGOAL document that you cite:
>
> "8 While NZGOAL does apply to datasets, it does not apply to software
> which, for example, an agency owns and may wish to release on open
> source terms. In such circumstances open source software licences are
> more appropriate than the NZGOAL licences."
>
> I suggest you reconsider using CC licenses for code, and move to a
> Free Software license.
>
> (If you're committed non-commercial use only, then you should be aware
> that almost all free and open source licenses allow commercial use,
> but I'm sure there are people on the list who can identify
> non-commercial-but-open-source licenses.)
>
> Gordon
>
>
> On 1 August 2010 19:45, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>> I was using Creative Commons clauses as they are part of NZGOAL...
<http://www.e.govt.nz/policy/information-and-data/nzgoal-framework>
>>
>> Which is where I presume most of us would like to see central and local
government support and work with :)
>>
>> I also don't think there was any conflict between my two statements. If I
provide code under NZGOAL and I say NC, then that is just the way it is. Folk
are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the terms.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 31/07/2010, at 10:09 PM, Gordon wrote:
>>
>>>> OSS code that we develop at the ARC is normally provided under BY-NC-SA
and I
>>>> feel data should be the same.
>>>
>>> That seems a bit odd, frankly.
>>>
>>> Even the Creative Commons folk say: "Creative Commons licenses should not
be used for software"
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#Can_I_license_software_using_CC_licenses.3F
).
>>>
>>> And I don't want to get onto a "Free Software" Vs "OSS" debate, but I find
these statements quite hard to reconcile this:
>>>
>>>> I do though struggle with others being able to
>>>> charge for IP that I provide for free which they may
>>>> modify/ reuse in some way."
>>>
>>> with this:
>>>
>>>> I am a huge OSS proponent...
>>>
>>>
>>> Having said that, I do applaud (and sympathise with) this sentiment: "What
we have done though, within the constraints placed upon us, is make the data
more freely available for end users than it ever was."
>>>
>>> Gordon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/1uFHe6U6o2ulXoNxhqVfZU
>>>
>>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>> Start your own free groups and site with
>>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>>
>>> Host your own online groups site with
>>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
>> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/2VWRl4hzcEcmDnTqNbfHPp
>>
>> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
>> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>>
>> Start your own free groups and site with
>> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>>
>> Host your own online groups site with
>> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/4Jb3sOuiysL31l2h8XozJh
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
On 1/08/2010, at 8:09 PM, John Holley wrote:
> As you are aware Ed, we are bound by conditions imposed on us - it
> is not inexplicable but commercial constraints that we have to meet.
No, I'm unfortunately not aware. What commercial constraints must be
met? Do these disappear when the Auckland Council is formed?
> ALGGi are just operating under the directives of the CE Forum for
> Auckland.
Can you forward a copy of the "directives of the CE Forum for Auckland"?
Hi John:
First let me say I don't disagree with most of what you've said about
data, and I think you're doing a good job of trying to explain what
it's like to be a provider of public data. But your comparison to code
does nothing to support your arguments.
Second, let me say that I am not a lawyer, and there are people on
this list who know a lot more about this topic than me.
Now. Most open source software is released under the GNU GPL, the APL,
the BSD License, or a license that is legally similar to one of these.
In all these cases (expect maybe GPL3) you are entirely within the
license terms and conditions to take the code, modify it, use it to
build a commercial product, and sell it.
However, some of these licenses place some additional requirements on
you, for example an obligation to provide your modified code on
request (e.g. GPL) which make it difficult (but impossible) to use as
the basis for a commercial product. Others don't have this clause
(e.g. BSD) so you can make a commercial product from it more easily.
Either way, there's usually nothing to stop you modifying and
attempting to sell open source software (with some exceptions).
Hope that helps. We're getting a bit off-topic, and this is tangential
to the main issue, so feel free to email me off-list if you want to
discuss it further.
Gordon
On 1 August 2010 20:04, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> Sorry Gordon but can you explain?
>
> John
> On 1/08/2010, at 7:50 PM, Gordon Paynter wrote:
>
>> On 1 August 2010 19:36, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
>>> Again, I use the open source code comparison. As a company I am free to use
code to make money via services but if I add/modify the code and then try to
sell it I am probably breaking the license terms of the code.
>>
>> Sorry to be blunt, but as a general statement that is simply wrong.
>>
>> Gordon
>>
Have asked for the background documents.
We have put forward a paper to free up the supply of data in the new
council...now we wait.
John
John Holley
<email obscured>
<email obscured>
+64 275 952 625
Sent from my iPad
On 1/08/2010, at 8:21 PM, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
> On 1/08/2010, at 8:09 PM, John Holley wrote:
>
>> As you are aware Ed, we are bound by conditions imposed on us - it
>> is not inexplicable but commercial constraints that we have to meet.
>
> No, I'm unfortunately not aware. What commercial constraints must be
> met? Do these disappear when the Auckland Council is formed?
>
>> ALGGi are just operating under the directives of the CE Forum for
>> Auckland.
>
> Can you forward a copy of the "directives of the CE Forum for Auckland"?
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3DzNf8B26IcJux1FyZGBNb
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
Have enjoyed this conversation.
> As you are aware Ed, we are bound by conditions imposed on us - it is not
> inexplicable but commercial constraints that we have to meet.
> ALGGi are just operating under the directives of the CE Forum for Auckland.
>
> John
>
I'm keen to see the directives from the CE Forum.
I don't pretend to understand the licensing issues, but from a user end- the
layers from Koordinates, the community organisation I work for [1], has
been able to utilise and generate flyovers down catchments has been hugely
useful in communicating with public, funders, and stakeholders.
Our projects also sit across different Ward boundaries and Local Board
areas, so keyword search/feed for agendas, minutes, plans based on locality
for us will be key.
I also heard from different candidates running for different levels of the
Auckland council that an open data briefing/principles/recommendations
document would be most helpful.
Look forward to meeting people going to Mezze Bar tonight at 5:30.
[1] www.ecomatters.org.nz
Carl Chenery
<email obscured>
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:54 PM, John Holley <email obscured>> wrote:
> Have asked for the background documents.
>
> We have put forward a paper to free up the supply of data in the new
> council...now we wait.
>
> John
>
> John Holley
> <email obscured>
> <email obscured>
> +64 275 952 625
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 1/08/2010, at 8:21 PM, Ed Corkery <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> > On 1/08/2010, at 8:09 PM, John Holley wrote:
> >
> >> As you are aware Ed, we are bound by conditions imposed on us - it
> >> is not inexplicable but commercial constraints that we have to meet.
> >
> > No, I'm unfortunately not aware. What commercial constraints must be
> > met? Do these disappear when the Auckland Council is formed?
> >
> >> ALGGi are just operating under the directives of the CE Forum for
> >> Auckland.
> >
> > Can you forward a copy of the "directives of the CE Forum for Auckland"?
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> > http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/3DzNf8B26IcJux1FyZGBNb
> >
> > To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> > <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
> >
> > Start your own free groups and site with
> > OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
> >
> > Host your own online groups site with
> > GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Full text of this topic in The Open Government Ninjas:
> http://groups.open.org.nz/r/topic/4ebhZxazUZuf3bMu4BMIcf
>
> To leave The Open Government Ninjas, email
> <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe
>
> Start your own free groups and site with
> OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net
>
> Host your own online groups site with
> GroupServer http://groupserver.org
>
I would love this too. We had a project at the ARC two years ago, which we
stopped due to the supercity, for a new Enterprise Information Management
environment. Part of the vision (well certainly mine) was to have our records
being able to be publicly searchable e.g. any electronic document/email etc.
that would be produced as the result of a LGOIMA request.
The system being put in for the new council democracy services (who run all the
meetings, produce agendas etc.) has this capability, via a web interface at
least. At the moment, as far as I know, there is no intent to expose the
service to the public.
John
On 4/08/2010, at 12:29 PM, Carl Chenery wrote:
> I don't pretend to understand the licensing issues, but from a user end- the
> layers from Koordinates, the community organisation I work for [1], has
> been able to utilise and generate flyovers down catchments has been hugely
> useful in communicating with public, funders, and stakeholders.
> Our projects also sit across different Ward boundaries and Local Board
> areas, so keyword search/feed for agendas, minutes, plans based on locality
> for us will be key.