Ordnance Survey says Met Police crime maps break its licence. Does Jacqui Smith know? Or Gordon Brown?
Ordnance Survey has confirmed to me that the crime maps being used by the Met Police break its licence.
And any other police force that uses “ward boundaries” (subdivisions of their force’s policing area, which is how all police forces record crimes) or refers to an OS map in order to plot the location of a crime, and then plots it on anything other than a fully-licenced OS map, is also breaking the OS’s licence.
This, basically, derails any sort of useful crime mapping – and has to call into question whether police forces can meet the deadline promised by the home secretary Jacqui Smith in July.
Just to remind you what was said:
Every neighbourhood in England and Wales will have access to the latest local crime information through new interactive crime maps, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced today.
The rollout of interactive crime maps follows the announcement made by the Home Secretary earlier this month, as part of the Policing Green Paper, that every police force in the country has now delivered monthly crime information to the public on their websites. New interactive crime maps will take the rollout of local crime information to the next level.
By the end of the year every police force area will produce crime maps which will allow the public to:
- see where and when crime has happened, down to street level for some crimes;
- make comparisons with other areas; and
- learn how crime is being tackled by their local neighbourhood policing team.
The new maps will give the public the information they need to hold their local police force to account. The maps will communicate to the public how they can get involved in setting local policing priorities to reduce the crime that matters to them in their area.
The Met Police then went and set up their own crime mapping site, which doesn’t give precise locations of crimes, but does show relative levels of crime, broken down by ward, and plotted – fatally – on a Google Map.
Yesterday OS sent me a statement which said:
“Our understanding is that the Met Police sourced their boundary information through the Office of National Statistics (ONS). We class this as being derived data therefore taking that outside the terms of our licensing. We are working with all the parties involved to find a solution.”
(Need to remind yourself about “derived” data? Be our guest.)
This though skewers Jacqui Smith’s publicly-announced plans for crime mapping. There can be no solution while the OS’s licence – which forbids one putting OS-derived data obtained under one OS licence onto a map that has another licence (or no OS licence at all), unless the two licences have an exactly congruent set of users and terms.
It’s never a good idea to tell a home secretary that the pledge they made publicly in July, allowing six months to happen, now can’t be met.
Then again, perhaps Jacqui Smith isn’t a formidable enough opponent. How about Gordon Brown, who is also in favour of crime mapping?
That said, there are some crime maps already available, which do use OS maps: West Yorkshire police; West Midlands police. As I’ll explore in a later post, they’re complete rubbish – they lack any sort of helpful positional API, multiple layers, or other features that make crime mapping useful. Though they do seem to build on an OS map. This means OS is offering some sort of API-based system. Pity that it’s pretty much hopeless.
Compare and contrast it with the Chicago output of Everyblock – for a particular police beat, or a neighbourhood – and you can see how prehistoric these UK efforts look. Even the ones that are breaking the OS licence. (And especially the ones that aren’t.)
If one good thing can come out of all this it would be for the OS’s stranglehold on geographical information to be broken by a political row in which it frustrates the Home Office – one of the most powerful departments in the country.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Home Office responds re OS and crime maps (21 November 2008; score: 102.65%)
- Crime mapping coming more widely as government gets on board (18 June 2008; score: 72.03%)
- Interactive crime maps for everyone by Christmas, says Home Office (28 July 2008; score: 63.73%)
- BBC's iPM looks at crime mapping in Chicago (17 June 2008; score: 60.67%)
- Why the police are against crime mapping - and what it tells us (30 May 2008; score: 58.04%)
November 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The problem is that the OS eloquently argues the case for its financing but then, they would, wouldn’t they? I don’t suppose the man at the top is surviving on a pittance, and finding other forms of income would involve a lot more headaches than the status quo, regardless of the merits of doing so.
Surely the vested interests should be removed, and people whose livelihoods do not depend on the current arrangements should examine the right way to fund the OS.
I feel glumly that all that is likely to happen is that government departments will be allowed to use the data however they like, but the proles won’t.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I was interested (and a little disappointed!) in your comment “That said, there are some crime maps already available, which do use OS maps: West Yorkshire police; West Midlands police. As I’ll explore in a later post, they’re complete rubbish”
West Yorkshire Police delivered http://www.beatcrime.info three years ago with minimal funding and long before any Home Office / ACPO initiative. The maps displayed are simply static images, compiled each month using routines developed in-house and our corporate GIS; there is no alternative API from OS. The site is currently being revised to meet customer feedback such as more detailed maps, a location indicator and better links to Neighbourhood Policing team sites. Even so, the general public like the current site and representation of (OS derived!) points on maps indicating crimes and incidents as opposed to the more common thematic/choropleth mapping used in other solutions (such as the Met Police).
But guess what – we’ve been affected by the Google/OS (and for us Microsoft Live Maps) derived data issue which is putting extra pressure, time delays and potentially additional cost into finding a workable solution utilising one of their API’s to give richer functionality. This is a really frustrating situation for not only WY Police, but all other Forces. Some Forces have looked to a solution which originally utilised Googlemaps, but are now having to consider using one functional application from a supplier and then another 3rd party with an OS license who will act as a map service – at a cost obviously. What a crazy position the Police have been dropped into!
November 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
@ Malachi – sorry, didn’t mean to be rude about the sincere efforts of people who want to get data out there. I meant to be rude about organisations that institutionally block the spread of useful public data.
The solution is to press Jacqui Smith to press Iain Wright (DCLG, in charge of OS) and Treasury to alter the OS licence so its maps (at least down to some level) are available copyright-free. And so “derived” data also becomes copyright-free.
Good to have your input confirming what I thought: police crime mapping is being strangled by the OS licence. This cannot end well for OS.
@Brian: government can’t alter only the OS supply to police with a special one-off licence: under EU competition law that would be illegal. Anyone else would be entitled to complain. Such as Google. Google taking the UK govt to court complaining about antitrust/anti-competitive behaviour would be so ironic that Tom Lehrer would have to write a song about it.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
It’s not just the police though, the Local Authority I work for would like to use the google maps API in places on our website as it is easy to use and familiar to many, but we cannot place any information on it due to derived data conditions (which are very broad). Since a lot of this data had it’s capture beginnings back when OS were the only supplier we are now locked into either a) continuing to use OS regardless of the terms and conditions imposed or b) recapturing every piece of data we have, using non-OS sources. As OS do not have an API we can use (openspace is specifically not for govt use) we have to look at expensive third party options which use our own OS data as a backdrop.
Additionally, as b) above is prohibitively expensive and time consuming there is no chance of another supplier being able to counter OS’s position in the local authority market.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
@ Charles
Not sure that you are being fair to the West Midlands guys either. This site has been getting quite a lot of positive feedback and has evolved well since its first inception about 3 years ago. The site does not use an OS API as you suggest:
“As I’ll explore in a later post, they’re complete rubbish – they lack any sort of helpful positional API, multiple layers, or other features that make crime mapping useful. Though they do seem to build on an OS map. This means OS is offering some sort of API-based system. Pity that it’s pretty much hopeless”
The site uses OS map data as a background but you cannot blame the OS if you don’t like the functionality, crime mapping data or usability of the implementation. That is the responsibility of West Midlands and their contractors.
All of that said it does seem a bit surreal that we are stuck in this situation and we have to get it resolved. However I don’t think the issue is simply OS forbidding users to render “derived data” over another base map, my reading is that the issue is about Google’s terms and OS perception that Google is claiming some form of right over data displayed on top of their mapping API. Perhaps Google’s lawyers could in some way reassure OS’s lawyers and then we could all move on.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
@Steve – not wanting to repeat all the posts on the previous blog entry, but the issue surrounding derived data is more fundamental than just related to the current issue of Google’s licensing requirements. Anyone digitising a point, a line or a polygon upon an OS map, is creating derived data and cannot freely reuse this data without an OS license. This to me is nonsense. If it was part or wholesale reproduction of an OS map, purely for the purpose of making another map, then OK, that’s not on. But if you use OS maps (which you’ve paid a license fee for) to position and plot your own data, be they locations of toilets, a cycle path, a protected tree or a street lamp, what’s that information got to do with OS? I think a degree of common sense needs to start being applied to their licensing.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
The OS themselves have commented on the previous post with regards to this issue:
http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/blog/?p=256#comment-105810
November 19th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
@dave – yes, the OS comment – if you read it carefully – precisely says what I’ve highlighted here. Except they don’t spell it out; you have to read it asking “so what if..”
@Steven – as James says, the issue really, truly is OS. West Yorks wants to do really useful crime maps. It can’t because OS licensing won’t allow data created by reference to one map to be shown on another map licensed (roundaboutly: OS -> TeleAtlas -> Google) from OS.
Doesn’t that strike you as a bit strange? The licence doesn’t allow the first lot of data to be shown to more people than you are licensed to show it to. That is the sticking point re showing “derived” data on Google, Microsoft Live (inc Streetmap), Yahoo, Ask and anyone.
Now, you can argue that that is perfectly proper. Which OS does. Or you can argue that it fatally wounds so many helpful public projects. Which we do.
We’ll see which way Iain Wright sees it when he starts to hear from Jacqui Smith, I suppose.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Bluntly, the entire top management of the OS should be removed: they were all appointed on the basis that they had be be purely commercial, and their backgrounds, predilections and experience means that not one of them can have any relevance now that the world has moved on. Clearly they won’t resign of their volition, but some force needs to be applied: perhaps the Cabinet office now contains the politcal will to do this?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
To what extent does the term “derived” cover and how can that be policed? Imagine the scenario of a set of data derived from OS maps which represented libraries. Which of these following “derived” datasets based on the original data would be contaminated with OS restrictions:
* An algorithmically suggested set of locations for new libraries in areas with poor coverage?
* A heatmap showing library density per county?
I think of geographic coordinates as having the same value as hyperlinks – they provide an unambiguous, powerful and reliable means of linking information from multiple sources. The OS and Royal Mail’s restrictions on use of geographic data are helping to hold back the sort of connectivity that we all benefit from every day when surf the web.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
@ James – How do you draft a legally enforceable seperation between the type of reasonable usage of what OS calls “derived data”? You said
“If it was part or wholesale reproduction of an OS map, purely for the purpose of making another map, then OK, that’s not on.”
So for example publishing BLPU polygons based on MasterMap – would that be OK or not? It would not be difficult to recreate a copy of MM from the BLPUs would it? I guess that this is the kind of dilemma that OS are wrestling with
@ Charles – I don’t think the OS are objecting to “derived data” being displayed over another map, I think the concern is that Google claim some kind of license or right to the derived data. I agree with you that the current situation is stifling some useful and creative applications, i wonder whether the other API’s (eg multimap or yahoo) have the same licensing concerns for OS?
@ jpkatlarge – It is not for the top management of OS to resign. They are endeavouring to run the organisation in accordance with the funding model and charter that they have been given by their shareholder. The world may have moved on as you say but government has not yet changed the way they expect OS to operate, don’t blame OS management for that.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The OS rebuttal to this issue does not chime with the real issues which our membership – mainly PSI Value Added Resellers – encounter in their dealings with OS. Can it really be acceptable for the OS licensing terms to be unfair or restrictive on condition that the terms are equally unfair and restrictive in order to protect existing customers?
This is hardly likely to encourage innovation and consequently the majority of OS revenue is from direct sales from OS and not through resellers. Although the restrictive terms may ensure that OS easily achieves its financial targets, they also stunt opportunity, usability, fair competition and enterprise for others. These problems have been apparent for many years with little or no movement from OS and a growing level of pressure from elsewhere as the Web develops. The UK may (or may not) have the finest mapping in the world. It is a shame that its citizens cannot benefit from it more easily
The Locus Association
November 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Can OS really prevent unrestricted use of National Grid spot references?
For many years following the introduction of an experimental grid almost 80 years ago, users of popular OS maps were encouraged through guidance printed on the maps to identify locations by grid references, with no specific limitations on use. (This is distinct from extracting data from a structured OS product like Master Map). Has this not put such NG spot regernces, say for the public conveniences featured in Charles Arthur’s article, in the public domain?
So put the loos on a Google map and see what happens.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:06 am
It seems entirely logical for Local Authorities to start the process of registering their own geographical information in a form which is free of OS copyright. This process has only become practical in the last few years with the advent of cheap and accurate GPS and the emergence of OS-independent aerial surveys.
The People’s Map (www.peoplesmap.com) is a project which allows Local Authorities to do this. The People’s Map is a web-based mapping project which allows anybody to add mapping information which they ‘draw’ on top of Getmapping’s aerial photography. The map data thus collected is then rendered into a map at 14 different scales. In addition newly added data goes through a verification process to ensure that it is accurate and correct before it is added to the ‘verified’ map layer. The People’s Map is a commercial project and the map data has to be licensed for commercial use – however we are working with a leading group of Local Authorities to create high quality mapping of their areas which can be used freely and without restriction by the contributing Local Authorities.
The lead group of project partners for this project are Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) and Bath Spa University. If you are a Local Authority interested in knowing more then please feel free to contact Martin or the People’s Map team”
November 21st, 2008 at 10:10 am
Further to my last comment, I should have said Martin Laker at BANES
November 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Google has done those interested in the re-use of public sector information a favour. Individually, none of the many small GI companies can stand against OS, given their monopoly and control of the GI market in this country – a gift of their status as a trading fund. But Google has clout, and OS are having to use all their leverage from the inside of government to try and limit the damage to their control. But the argument is not about Google.
We should, as you say, be more encouraged by the fact that the debate is now reaching a real political issue of substance. The local government community, including the police, has long fought to negotiate better terms for using their own information in conjunction with geographic information. OS refuse to amend the terms of the MSA contract (a single contract worth almost a fifth of OS’s overall turnover). OS have the advantage that historically LAs collected data under previous variations of the agreement between OS and LG. This locks local authorities into OS’s policies on derived data – they can’t easily change suppliers because they’d have to recollect/re-invent all of their geographic information.
When they have voiced these concerns, local government has cited examples of how their services are constrained, but none of these issues registered at the same level as challenging promises from a Home Secretary, so they were stifled by OS’s relationship with CLG. (It’s ironic that CLG “looks after” the interests of both local government and OS.)
Now that national initiatives are at stake, perhaps Ministers will look beyond the technical arguments to the reality that OS stifles innovative use of GI data that could improve public services. The cheer from local authorities will be deafening if decisive action is taken.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
@ Steven: “I don’t think the OS are objecting to “derived data” being displayed over another map, I think the concern is that Google claim some kind of licence or right to the derived data.”
That is possibly correct, according to my understanding following lengthy discussions with OS Customer Services back in May 2007. We wanted to publish cycle routes “traced” from OS mapping using software like TrackLogs (also MemoryMap, Anquet, Quo, etc.) on Google maps on the CTC Maps website. We were told then that to do so we needed a “Paper Map Copying Licence”, which the CTC has. They also said that tracing from Google’s TeleAtlas mapping did not create a derived work, and so did not need any licence from OS to publish.
But that was then, and we’re not sure if OS think the same way now. They have said they’ll let me know once they’ve worked it out themselves.
Obviously the whole concept of needing something called a “Paper Map Copying Licence” in order to share routes you’ve created using route planning software, where everything is digital and no paper is involved, is a little odd. Perhaps we need a “Digital Derived Data Licence”, which could be free like the OPSI’s Click-Use Licence but would allow the OS to keep an eye on things.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
[...] and boundary data that is not physically obvious on the ground – is a Good Thing, as the current row between Google and the OS (more, more) about derived data [...]
November 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
[...] Guardian’s Free Our Data blog has more on this stand-off. Share this story with your [...]
November 29th, 2008 at 9:06 am
[...] Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » Ordnance Survey says Met … [...]
November 30th, 2008 at 8:11 am
[...] Ordnance Survey says Met Police crime maps break its licence. Does … November 30th, 2008 [...]
February 13th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/FreeMaps/
January 28th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
[...] Office is closing and closing fast. Of course, it doesn’t help when the Ordnance Survey asserts rights over the crime maps produced by London’s Metropolitan Police either. But baby steps, as my friends in the United [...]
May 25th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
[...] For anyone who thinks this is merely a theoretical problem, it may be of interest that all those lovely crime maps launched by police forces across the UK are probably in violation of the OS’s licensing terms. [...]