Data Sharing Policies and LicensingWill Craig

University of Minnesota &

NSGIC

35W Bridge CollapseWednesday, August 1, 2007

115’ drop in seconds 13 killed, 145 injured Mayor and Governor

declared Disaster – Bush Emergency

Neither city nor county would release adjacent parcel data to R&R teams

Census Addresses

Addresses cannot be shared Title 13 of US Code Baldridge v Shapiro, 1982 LUCA, 1994, but no retention

Could undermine Census Could bring harm to individuals

Address Points added in 2010 $444 million No plan for updating

NSGIC pushing for release & joint maintenance

Craig, 2006

2010 CA County Parcel PricesExtreme $375,000 Orange County

Other Fee > Cost of Copy

$650 - $2,850 4 counties

Privately Maintained

$1,500 - $13,400

4 counties

Fee = Cost of Copy or Free

$0 - $150 28 counties

Recently revised policy

$0 20 counties

Joffee, personal communication

Santa Clara County, California

Charged $250k for this data; license allowed no sharing

Sued by non-profit under CA sunshine law

County claims copyright, national security

County loses lawsuit, 2009 Must pay $500k to non-profit

for legal fees Headline screams “Hoarding

Map Data”

Wired, 10/14/09

“Lost” NEPA Data

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires use of [state/local] data in Environmental Impact Statements

That data is improved and augmented, but never shared. Why? No NEPA policy Metadata hurdle No host site No license requirement

Open Data Pays Dividends

Washington DC releases data to public in 2008

Holds Apps for Democracy 30 day contest with $50k in prizes

Gets $2.6million value in 47 apps for iPhone, Facebook and web

Round 2 coming up

Open Access

Advantages Diverse channels for

dissemination Decreased end-user

costs for raw data Easy market entry for

small innovators (Value Added Resellers)

Rapid development of NSDI

Drawbacks Limited supply of

products & services Difficult to recover

development costs Few fiscal incentives for

data enhancements Unregulated re-

distribution of data

Lopez 1996

Open Access Stakeholders

Winners End users Smaller redistributors Smaller users, eg

non-profits Requestors of raw

datasets

Losers Public agency selling

data Partners seeking

exclusive distribution rights

Others seeking exclusive partnerships

Lopez 1996

Cost Recovery

Advantages Reduced cost &

increased revenues to agency

Incentives for govt. data production

Improved govt. data products & services

Consistency of govt. data & standards

Drawbacks Increased cost to users Monopoly supply of

primary data sources Creaming of lucrative

data products Decreasing compet-

itiveness of data market

Lopez 1996

Cost Recovery Stakeholders

Winners Public agency owners Exclusive partners Large industries with

resources to buy Smaller players with

privileges

Losers End users Non-exclusive

redistributors Other public agencies Small firms, etc

without privileges

Lopez 1996

Open Records & Tax Base Growth

Why Correlation? Improved operations

(banks, Realtors, etc.) Attraction of outside $ Improved built

environment Reduced insurance

premiums

Klein 2009

Fee Structure Options

Average Cost

X = Total Cost

n = Est. # of buyers

then . . .

Fee = X / n

Marginal Cost

Fee = out-of-pocket costs of serving one customer (staff time & materials only)

Ten Ways to Support GIS without Selling Data

1. Capitalize new economic development2. Tap into better sales/prop tax collections3. Tap into related fees; e.g. deed recordation4. Tap “data collection” parts of new programs5. Royalties from VAR sales6. Sell services to other agencies7. Pay from programmatic savings 8. Pay from infrastructure mgmt. cost savings9. Allocate costs to operating budgets10. Allocate funds from general budget

Joffe 2005

Licensing Geographic Data and Services

2004 Mapping Sciences Committee, National Academy

Good reasons to license Retain credit/Attribution Restrain no-effort resellers Limit liability - disclaimers Formalize relationship Can still be free

Caveats on licensing Standardize, simplify Limit use on data used for regs or

policies that affect citizen rights

A Process Framework forDeveloping Local Government

Data Access Policies

South Carolina Solution

Geospatial Administrators Association of South Carolina

Assist local government in establishing a data distribution policy

Defines a process Have a well thought out

policy that fits their perspective and objectives

GAASC 2009

Improving Data Exchange

MnGCGI 2003

Issue SolutionsPrivate/Confidential Make anonymous,

Summarize, or non-disclosure agreement

Cost recovery Estimate & document

Liability DisclaimerRedistribution What limits? Derived

products?Documentation Metadata

Technical support Charges

Distribution mode Web vs. CD vs. custom

Which Randy Johnson is right?

~$90,000/yr sales What are the internal

benefits to Hennepin County?

Community benefits Cost/Benefit analysis FGDC 2010 CAP

grant Results next year

Hennepin County MN

Let’s discuss

Bibliography Craig, William J. 2006. A Master Address File for State and Local Government,

URISA Proceedings. GAASC. 2009. Guide to Developing GIS Data Access Policies, South Carolina GIS Joffe, Bruce. 2005. Ten Ways to Support GIS Without Selling Data, URISA Journal. Klein, Dennis. 2009. Broad Use of Digital Parcel Maps and Property Tax Base

Growth, Fair & Equitable, IAAO, March. Lopez, Xavier. 1996.

Stimulating GIS Innovation Through Dissemination of Geographic Information, URISA Journal.

Mapping Science Committee. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services, National Academy Press.

MnGCGI. 2003. Making the Most of Geospatial Data Exchange, Minnesota Governor’s Council on Geographic Information.