Ordnance Survey launches “OpenSpace” (sort of); Guardian reports on delays in government GIS report
Two related pieces of news.
First, the Ordnance Survey has launched – without any announcement we’ve spotted – an element of its OpenSpace platform, with the Explore portal. As originally conceived, this would have let people create mashups on OS maps. However, that functionality isn’t there yet; you can add “walks” (that seems to be all) to a 1:50,000 (Landranger-quality) map, though more is promised for the future.
Ed Parsons, formerly chief technology officer at OS, and now working for Google’s mapping division, comments on his blog:
Although this is nothing new – platial after all offered similar functionality a few years ago – this has been a long time coming. I was involved in some of the design work over a year ago! this is still an important step forward for the OS.
From a technology point of view the service was/is underpinned by the backend system developed to support the long delayed OpenSpace project, so hopefully there will be news about that soon.
Parsons concludes:
Although I would take issue with some of the T&C’s, this really is progress in the right direction from Southampton.
I’d not heard of Platial, but it certainly does do stuff that’s much the same (here’s a randomly-chosen “walk” in London), but using Google Maps.
The Explore page does show some Web 2.0-ness: it’s got a “blog” (more like comments) and shows the latest stuff. Except, as Parsons points out, any “walk” you submit becomes OS’s property. Eh?
Yes – here are the “portal rules“:
7.3 By submitting, posting or displaying any Submission on or through the OEP, User hereby grants to the Administrator a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, worldwide licence to use, copy, edit, alter, reproduce, publish, distribute and/or sub-licence the whole and/or any part of the Submission, on or in connection with the OEP and for any other purpose.
In other words, OS can resell your stuff if everyone creates walks it likes. Not exclusively, but for itself.
Which in fact is exactly the same as we want the OS to provide its data to us, the citizens. Except that things seem to have gotten turned on their head, and OS is acting like a big media company such as MTV wanting to piggyback on the submissions of its viewers. (See “Whose content is it anyway?“, from Technology Guardian 21 September 2006)
Rather unhelpfully, although the page says that
The Administrator may update or revise the OEP Rules (including the Copyright / IPR Policy) at any time, with immediate effect, without notice. You are responsible for reviewing these pages regularly to ensure you are aware of any changes made and your continued use of the OEP after the changes have been posted means you agree to be legally bound by the new OEP Rules.
it doesn’t have a “last updated” tag.
Still, it’s movement, of sorts. But what we really want is an API so we can create mashups.
Update: Ed Parsons points out in the comments that it also bans links to “any page of the OEP Portal”. Let’s see how that one lasts online.
Meanwhile, Guardian Technology this week looks at the delays in the publication of an internal government report on geographical information:
Under the government-wide programme to transform public services through IT, a geographic information strategy for the UK was due to be published by July. But it has not yet appeared – and no publication date has yet been set.
Apart from the prime ministerial changeover, there is another reason for the delay: unhappiness that one organisation, Ordnance Survey, is both the government’s official adviser on geographical information and the main beneficiary of contracts to supply it. It’s roughly akin to Microsoft being appointed official adviser on government software purchasing.
The Association for Geographical Information has called for quicker publication of minutes of the government’s Geographic Information Panel; those from the June meeting haven’t appeared on the GIP’s website yet.
One final note of interest: this week’s edition of Guardian Technology carries a large recruitment advert on the front page – for staff in geographical information. It’s a burgeoning business…
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- OS makes OpenSpace open to all. However.. (31 January 2008; score: 33.34%)
- Catching up: government responds to OFT and Power of Information reports (5 July 2007; score: 28.32%)
- Why don't local authorities release more data? (24 August 2006; score: 25.33%)
- APPSI to examine free data model, it says (11 June 2008; score: 22.71%)
- Is OS's OpenSpace all it's cracked up to be? (26 December 2007; score: 21.85%)
September 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
There’s another condition that will hugely limit the use of Explorer. They have forbidden linking in to the Explorer portal from anywhere else, which means no website can use Explorer to illustrate anything. Hence FreeOurData is in breach of Explorer rules by linking to it!
How the OS think this can take off without anyone being able to link to it is a mystery to me. It’s like launching an offline product and forbidding advertising or mentions of it. Can such a condition actually be applied? Can the OS forbid Google and Yahoo from indexing the site, which would seem to break this rule?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
@Paul – I did look for that condition, but couldn’t find it. Where is it?
September 13th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
How about linking to Mr Parsons’ blog as well as quoting from it?
[Ooops - had intended to; now added. -Charles]
September 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Its clause 7.3 on http://explore.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/public/document/copyright_ip_policy don’t worry charles I’m happy for you to link or not :-)
September 13th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I must take slight issue on the T&C’s comment, I note that Googles Terms are much the same…11. Content licence from you
11.1 ….. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organisations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services
is that really much difference than Ordnance Surveys?
September 13th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
There’s not a huge difference in the Ts&Cs from Google – but the key point relevant to this campaign is that Ordnance Survey is a government-owned body, and thus should be working for us, the citizens.
Google works for its shareholders. Ordnance Survey’s shareholders are in effect us.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:18 am
Things won’t change while we’re expecting “the OS to provide its data to us“. We need “the OS to provide our data back to us“. There’s about as much chance of that as there is Google becoming privacy-friendly.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:07 am
The comparison with Google is getting unbalanced the other way now!
Google allow all types of users (even commercial organisations) at access Google maps data through their API, free of charge, and to build Google map applications on their own websites, which is leading to a huge amount of innovation.
By comparison, the OS are trying even to stop you just linking to their site.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Google may work for its shareholders. my point is that any data posted, from my local authority view, onto to google for say display purposes, would by the virtue of googles T&C’s become googles property to exploit in anyway or form. ie commercially..I’m not suri am just drawing attention that the T&C’s are probably standard practice rather than a catch all, but
September 14th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I was just drawing attention that the T&C’s are probably standard industry practice rather than a catch all. I assume by making this post it gives the campaign the right to reuse the comments?
September 14th, 2007 at 9:43 am
There’s a difference between something becoming “property” (even intellectual) and the author granting a *licence* for its reuse.
Google and OS don’t assume that your walks become their property. They do both take on a licence to resell them, though. In the case of Google, you can see that it’s a commercial entity and the logic for that; hence why it’s doing that.
For OS, one can see that the same applies. But the argument is that it should not be acting as a “commercial enterprise” because it is in effect owned by the people who are using it.
OS could have rejigged its Ts&Cs not to be like that.
September 18th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Seriously I believe the OS IS in its little way is giving something back to the citizen (sorry , the outdoor type)…I mean they dont charge for this…..yet!!! so its pretty good.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Can I just make clear there is no problem whatsoever with anyone linking to explore from outside Ordnance Survey.
September 21st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hi Scott,
Thanks for taking the time to post, just to clarify the reworded clause 7.3 prohibits
“7.3 linking to any page of the OEP Portal other than the home page. If you do link to the OEP Portal homepage, the link must be neither misleading nor deceptive and must fairly indicate the OEP Portal as the destination of the link. The website from which you link to the OEP Portal home page must be owned by you and must not contain any content that is distasteful, offensive or controversial, infringes any intellectual property rights or other rights of any other person or that otherwise does not comply with all applicable laws and regulations.”
Still seems to prevent a user from linking to their walk. You can only link to the explore home page?
Is this not the case ?
Again thanks for joining the discussion.
ed
September 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Ed, you’re right that at the moment it says you can only link to the home page but we’re getting a clear steer from the excellent feedback so far on where the terms and conditions could be improved. We’ve already made one amendment. Please accept this is beta, it’s only been up and running for a couple of weeks and we’re in discussion with our colleagues in Legal on the best way to reflect user need.
September 24th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Scott,
Thanks believe me.. I understand the issues :-)
Keep it up !
ed