OS: ‘we can’t give away these maps’
In today’s Guardian, in the “Response” column – where people or organisations can respond, unedited, to pieces that have appeared in the paper which they feel misrepresent them – Scott Sinclair, head of PR for Ordnance Survey, has written a piece that has been headlined These maps cost us £110m. We can’t give them away for free.
The crux of the argument: that “giving away” the OS’s data (as this campaign is pushing for) would mean a decline in the quality of OS data.
But in repeatedly calling for our core information to be given away, the campaign ignores the fact that someone still has to collect supposedly “free” data, and that it needs to be supported by an appropriate infrastructure. Out-of-date or poor-quality data is useless.
We agree about the need for quality data, though not the “ignores” bit. We have actually thought about this.
It cost Ordnance Survey £110m to collect, maintain and supply our data last year, but we are not “paid for by taxes”, as the campaign often claims. Instead, we depend entirely on receipts from licensing and direct sales to customers for our income – we receive no tax funding at all.
This campaign doesn’t say (not even “often”) that OS is paid for by taxes. We repeatedly point to its trading fund model, and how we think that distorts the market. Though in the sense that just under half its revenue comes from government, which last time we looked was funded by our taxes, the OS does get taxation funding. It’s just indirect.
Many local-authority websites and free-to-air services from private-sector companies embed Ordnance Survey information. We offer an emergency mapping service that helped in the response to the summer flooding. More than 30,000 university students and staff download free mapping from us.
The students aren’t free to create commercial services with it, though; nor are the local authorities, of course, while the private sector companies often find that the costs of using OS data can be downright scary. If you’re not Google’s size, you’re not going to create your own system.
Underpinning all of these examples is accurate and up-to-date information, which requires investment. Experience from around the world, and even from our own history between the world wars, shows that underinvestment can lead to a severe deterioration in quality.
As we’ve said, here if not in print, there would need to be safeguards to make sure that OS got the funding it needed to meet its present targets (where something like 95% – or is it 99%? – of changes are put into MasterMap within 6 months of being captured).
The key aim of the Free Our Data campaign is to force us to give everything away. We believe this would seriously threaten the quality of our information at a time when more people are relying on more of it in more ways than ever before.
We believe it would set off an explosion in private-sector use of the data, and lead to more companies which would create more jobs and generate more taxes. That would offset any extra taxation required to fund OS. Making the data free would also get rid of onerous and inefficient licensing schemes that tangle up central and local government departments, which wonder if they can reuse something or even display it on the web. (Search this blog for NEPHO.)
What’s interesting is that he references last week’s piece about Norway, which removed internal charging for its map data within government (though not externally) and has seen as a result that departments have leapt on the ability to create new systems and concepts as a result of not having to worry about cost or licences. Norway has only gone halfway – it still charges externally – but it shows what can happen.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Power of Information authors rebuff Ordnance Survey over "free maps" article (9 October 2007; score: 16.55%)
- Ordnance Survey says Met Police crime maps break its licence. Does Jacqui Smith know? Or Gordon Brown? (19 November 2008; score: 14.36%)
- Want to put maps online cheaply? Get a paper licence and scan them (30 August 2007; score: 14.27%)
- Ordnance Survey replies to "Give us back our crown jewels" (15 March 2006; score: 12.48%)
- Welcome to the Free Our Data campaign blog (13 March 2006; score: 12.41%)
October 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Sigh… the woes of trying to get data. Data = power, and not a whole lot of people are willing to give it away.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Just because our taxes pay for something it does not mean that we have the right to do with it as we please. If that were the case then I would very much like to take a police car for a spin. My taxes helped buy it, therefore I own a share in it and should be able to use one as I please! Even better, I feel the urge for a trip in a Eurofighter – I own shares in those don’t i?
October 9th, 2007 at 9:54 am
@someone – that’s a very, very weak argument. It fails to make the distinction between physical objects and data. Data can be copied without preventing others using it; indeed, with geographic data, the more people who use it, the more useful it becomes. (That’s the “network effect” – rather as there’s not much point being the only person in a town with a telephone, but when everyone has one, the network has much more value.) And the more that people can do with map data – without being held back by licensing regimes – the more useful it becomes.
The Free Our Data argument is that while there’s a small cost to giving map (and other) data away for free, it creates an enormous multiplier.
Case in point: GPS data. Given away for free, paid for by US taxpayers (about $400m annually), generates billions of pounds of value annually.
There’s also a letter in today’s Guardian which makes the point pretty well. I’ll post it here later today.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Someone” isn’t ‘head of corporate communications at Ordnance Survey’ by any chance are they? Their response was equally as mis-informed as the original article. .
October 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
[...] A Guardian Technology campaign for free public access to data about the UK and its citizens « OS: ‘we can’t give away these maps’ [...]
October 14th, 2007 at 11:20 am
@Charles – I accept your point that my argument was weak. However, the principle is still the same – this campaign is about making Government owned data free for reuse. My point is that we should not assume that because we (the tax payers) have paid for this data we should have the right to use it how we see fit, there has to be checks and balances.
The current regime does not make it impossible for organisations (public and private) to make innovative use of licensed Government data. It provides a level playing field and prevents cosy “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your’s” arrangements between large/powerful organisations that would stifle innovation – how is a small organisation supposed to compete with the likes of Microsoft and Google? Under current rules everyone is treated the same regardless of who you are. I believe the real argument should be about cost – not giving it away but making sure it is accessible for all.
The argument about the difference between refined and unrefined is also weak in my view as the unrefined data would not be useful to a very large number of organisations. Therefore, it would be down to commercial organisations to create “products”, which of course will be licensed! Look at Google, yes you can make use of the data for free but it is subject to licensing restrictions!
For the record, I am NOT the head of corporate communications at Ordnance Survey!
October 15th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
@Someone (second time): yes, there do have to be checks and balances, but it makes sense to start from the point of view that data collected by government (which exists at the pleasure of the citizens, or to serve them, unless you adhere to a very rigorously monarchic point of view) should be free to its citizens, and then ask what the *exceptions* should be. (I can’t really make a coherent case for the Vehicle Licensing Agency not being a trading fund, for example.)
how is a small organisation supposed to compete with the likes of Microsoft and Google?
By being able to access the same data at a price that won’t cripple them. It’s like making the choice: should a startup business use Windows, or Linux? Windows sounds attractive, but multiply it over 10, 100, 1,000 servers and it’s not. That’s why Google runs on Linux.
As to whether “unrefined” data would be useful or not – we’d have to see what was defined as refined. Yes, Google et al could write their own licences. But others could then come in with different licences. As happens with operating systems…
October 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
[...] of not just the Royal Mail but the OrdÂnance SurÂvey Maps and other pubÂlic organÂiÂsaÂtions givÂing away our data for the nation’s greater good? Yea, my thought too: sweet fuck all, how would the bosses get [...]