"A lot of time counties will use outside contractors for GIS data specifically to be able to recover the costs of generating it"
Or I wonder if it isn't possible that the use of outside contractors merely increases the nominal price of creating GIS data, not the actual cost. In a technology era, shouldn't access to GIS data be seen as a public good, rather than as a commodity to which only those who can pay have access. It would certainly be an impediment to the long-term economic vitality of a county if all the streets were toll roads, and if you had to pay before you could get firefighters to answer a call, after the taxpayers had already paid for all of the up-front costs to pave the streets, build the firestations, and install fire hydrants and water mains. I might be thinking out loud, or I might just be sick of expensive, low-quality work done by contractors. BD On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Charles Greer <[email protected]> wrote: > A lot of time counties will use outside contractors for GIS data > specifically to be able to recover the costs of generating it, thereby > bypassing the Public Records Act. It's a nasty practice, but there's a huge > standing problem.. Counties have the mandate to generate and maintain very > expensive datasets with no recourse to fund it besides trying to pass costs > onto other agencies. > > Using contractors has been a loophole to keep GIS running in other words. > As I recall (been out of gvt for several years now) San Mateo and LA both > use that strategy. Where I worked, Sonoma county, you can download a bunch > of the datasets for free. A clearing house would be marvelous. > > > Charles > > > > > > Landon Blake wrote: > >> >> >> I should have cited the AG opinion in my previous message: >> >> >> NO: 04-1105 >> >> Attorney General Bill Lockyer >> >> Deputy Attorney General Daniel Stone >> >> >> ** Landon ** >> >> Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 >> >> Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 >> >> >> >> * From: * [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Landon Blake >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:11 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [Geowanking] Access to public geodata in California . >> >> >> I’m thinking about writing a letter to my County’s GIS department, which >> releases data under a very restrictive license agreement. The license >> agreement restriction that I the biggest problem with is: >> >> >> “GIS Product is not to be used for any purpose other than that indicated >> on the application. The >> >> applicant shall not disclose, lease, sell, distribute, make, transfer, or >> assign the GIS product or >> >> engage in any other transaction which has the effect of transferring the >> right to use for all or part of >> >> the GIS Product without prior written consent of the County of San Joaquin >> Community >> >> Development Department.” >> >> >> This effectively kills my ability to distribute “public data”, and it may >> kill my ability to distribute other data sets build from this public data. >> >> >> The County GIS Department has a link to the Attorney General’s opinion >> that concludes County’s must make their parcel GIS data available. (The >> County posted it on the website as a justification for the fees which they >> charge for the data. I don’t have a problem with these fees, although I >> think there a little pricey.) >> >> >> The Attorney General opinion mentions the California Public Records Act >> several times, and concludes that parcel data maintained by the County is >> subject to the provisions of the act. The opinion does not appear to discuss >> license agreements specifically. I’m wondering if any of you are aware of a >> provision in the California Public Records Act that deals with license >> agreements for public data subject to the act. Can my County be forced to >> release data under the act, but then place all sorts of restrictions on the >> use of that data with a license agreement? >> >> >> It would be good to cite a law or recent court case explaining that the >> license agreement or the restrictive provisions of it are not allowed under >> California law. I’m sure that my letter will head directly from the GIS >> department to my County’s legal department. >> >> >> Thanks for any help or suggestions. >> >> >> ** Landon Blake ** >> >> Project Surveyor >> >> California PLS 8489 >> >> Office Phone Number: (209) 946-0268 >> >> Cell Phone Number: (209) 992-0658 >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> 711 North Pershing Avenue >> >> Stockton , California , 95203 >> >> >> >> >> ** Warning: *** >> * Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against >> defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not >> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If >> you have received this information in error, please notify the sender >> immediately. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geowanking mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org >
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
