Re: [Geowanking] Access to public geodata in California - AG Opinion Citation

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:20:51 -0800 

Charles-
We do a lot of data sharing/visualization work with municipal, county and state governments. It is very clear that the ESRI monopoly on these markets is starting to crack, as most government agencies are failing to generate sufficient revenue to cover the expense of ESRI's tools (and the highly trained people needed to operate them). More and more less expensive alternatives are coming into the market that provide the ease of use of Google Earth/Maps but some of the power of more traditional GIS analysis. We've been finding that, at least in the communities we are working in, open access to public data through well-designed user interfaces has helped prove the value of such data to the people who need it the most. 


Based on the emergence of more usable tools that have increased the  
accessibility of data to those who need it, we're seeing an expansion  
of data-driven decision making happening.  Finally, politicians,  
administrators and other citizens are all starting to be able to  
participate in the civic process without having to go to a data geek  
every time they need a new map or other form of visualization.



We always see a lot of folks from the government (all levels) at URISA  
events:  http://urisa.org


-josh


Josh Knauer, CEO of Rhiza Labs

[email protected] | office: 412-488-0600 | cell: 412-551-2163 |  
twitter: jknauer


On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Charles Greer wrote:


Brian Denzer wrote:

"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.



You're right on all counts of course!  GIS data _is_ a public good  
and should be available.  I think it increases the overall value of  
the data to spread it around too.



But county governments are basically businesses just like commercial  
enterprises; but they just have very few ways to generate revenue,  
and a lot of mandated expenses.  So it can be a tremendous political  
challenge to defend the costs of GIS data production and maintenance.



What's most interesting looking back is that I never found the  
geowanking-community working in gvt GIS.  When google maps came  
along, I pretty much had to turn my back on what I saw as a _very_  
expensive, and heavyweight approach to GIS, backed by a de facto ESRI 
+Microsoft tag team.  So we all rely on the data generated by  
counties, but there's still no good way to fund it, and the cost of  
production is propped up by the IT infrastructure and time-consuming  
labor required for that kind of operation.



Do we have any civil service folks on this list at all I wonder?  It  
felt at the county that the ESRI user conference was the only place  
all the gvt types mingled.


Charles


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] <mailto:[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]>
       [mailto:[email protected]
       <mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of
       *Landon Blake
       *Sent:* Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:11 AM

       *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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]>
       <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
       http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
   _______________________________________________
   Geowanking mailing list
   [email protected] <mailto:[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




_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org























					Reply via email to