“OS replies” article – updated to two columns
In case anyone hasn’t yet read the Ordnance Survey’s reply to our original article that launched this campaign, it’s been updated so that you now see the original and the OS replies side-by-side, in a two-column format. Many thanks to Earle Martin for the CSS work and layout.
What’s revealing is of course that it shows what OS is replying to, and what it isn’t – though of course our argument is not with the OS, but with the Treasury which makes the rules on how public organisations that collect data cover their costs.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Ordnance Survey replies to "Give us back our crown jewels" (15 March 2006; score: 50.85%)
- Read all about it: New Yorker article on MapQuest (23 April 2006; score: 22.64%)
- Today in The Guardian: readers respond to the start of the campaign (16 March 2006; score: 22.52%)
- That's better: see what's been commented on recently (26 March 2006; score: 22.37%)
- Has the National Archives got the right model for digitising old data? (14 September 2006; score: 19.51%)
May 1st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
I’m wondering why the Ordnance Survey case hasn’t been explained more fully either on this blog by the OS official respondents who write in, Ed Prsons being one. You note that “our argument is not with the OS, but with the Treasury”. OS does in fact within the heirarchy of reporting, place itself above practically every government official and every government department. This is done in two ways. (1) Vanessa Lawrence the Director General of OS is officially ‘Adviser to Government’. This means essentially that her reporting line bypasses ODPM, the usual department for everything relating to mapping, and reports directly to ministers. She is the ultimate and final authority. and (2) OS is now maintaining that *anything* even remotely connected with mapping, like addressing data for instance, is part of its *Public Task*. Stating that ______ (fill in the blank) is part of the OS Public Remit, essentially allows them to charge, license, produce, contract etc whatever they please, flirting quite regularly with Competition Law at the same time. And who actually decides what the Public Task is…..Mrs. Lawrence of course. This explains the arrogance in dealing with the Office of Public Sector Information and also in dealing with the European Directive on PSI re-use.
Why doesn’t anyone who is contributing to this blog note this incredible and unconscionable conflict of interest? This is government at its worst!
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Sounds like you don’t like them? it seems that most people contributing to this blog (and there aren’t many of them – less than 20) are enthusiastic critics of OS although not with the gusto of your post.
What is missing is some constructive suggestions about welll thought through funding models. Your thoughts?
May 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 am
Steven, it’s not at all about whether or not I like them. Or whether or not anyone else “likes” them for that matter. I find it interesting that you are keeping a count of the pros and cons of the posts which support or don’t support the Ordnance Survey, by the way. If I am incorrect in what I post above, then I would very much like to be corrected with something more than a “No, you are wrong.” Am I wrong and if I am how?
There have been many constructive suggestions over the years about alternative funding models. It was the Peter Weiss paper which originally introduced this campaign. However, in order for ‘well thought out funding models’ to see the light of day, there needs to be fertile ground for them to be published and that hasn’t happened, for the reasons I note in my original post. However, the Office of Fair Trading is now doing just that in its study of the public sector information market. I for one look forward to that publication with anticipation.
I’m seeing that the originators of this campaign are now reading the relevant Treasury documents. Perhaps something will emerge from that enquiry.
Personally I favour the American model. The cost of the data is determined by the cost of the distribution medium, the cost of shipping and handling, if you will. What we can’t do is metricate the cost of lost opportunities and the cost of suppressed innovation because of our current model. I simply feel that the current situation is not in the best interests of the country.
My thoughts.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:28 am
“Personally I favour the American model. The cost of the data is determined by the cost of the distribution medium, the cost of shipping and handling, if you will. What we can’t do is metricate the cost of lost opportunities and the cost of suppressed innovation because of our current model. I simply feel that the current situation is not in the best interests of the country.” Interesting opinion, although as an earlier poster said, most people seem enthusiastic os critics.