Guest Blogger - Steven Feldman



Last year Geo.me were in discussions with a potential partner in Local Government and the dreaded derived data question came up, something along the lines of “we’d love to work with you but …”

There still seems to be quite a lot of confusion about what data Local Government (or for that matter any public sector user of Ordnance Survey base maps) can or cannot publish using the Google Maps API. I thought that I would try to produce a simple outline of what people could and couldn’t do. Given that OS had published some new guidelines on derived data I foolishly thought it would be a fairly simple task.

After several iterations (shared with OS and Google) and some helpful input from the licensing and legal folk at OS I finally handed over a finished version to Geo.me who have published it here. I must stress that this is my view of how PSMA members can publish data using Google Maps, OS have not officially sanctioned this view although I don’t believe that they materially disagree with it (watch the comments fill up on this post). Hopefully my version is a little easier to read and understand thanthis FAQ on the PSMA web site. 

It is disappointing that we still cannot freely publish all public sector corporate geodata on top of Google Maps as part of routine business activity in the public sector. It costs the public sector and tax payers dearly in terms of usability, software license fees and infrastructure costs. Why does this continue to be a problem (particularly as OS are keen to point out that publishing on Bing Maps is OK, shame the API is less popular than Google’s and offers less usage for free)? Having spent over 3 months of wrangling, discussing etc, it seems to me that there is a lot of lawyer facing off going on here and somehow common sense is being suspended. I really don’t think Google wants to appropriate any OS IPR but OS lawyers remained stressed about their interpretation of Google’s T&C’s.

In their FAQ OS say

We have sought official clarification from Google on these points, and suggested alternative drafting that would resolve the issue from our perspective whilst, we hope, satisfying Google’s need to develop their service unencumbered for the benefit of their users. We understand that these proposals are receiving active consideration from their lawyers and we are hopeful that our recent positive engagement and experience with Google will result in mutually agreeable terms being adopted.

My response would be “Please get a move on”. There is business to be done, tax payers’ money to be saved and better public facing mapping experiences all waiting on a full resolution.

In the meantime there are loads of local government data sets that can be published using either the free or premier Maps API’s. Far be it for me to say to anyone interested in this topic “JFDI!”

Geo.me and Google are running an event for Local Government in June, you can register here. I imagine I will have a word or two to say on the subject

Localism and a happy Christmas

We have had a big year of change and there are even more challenges in the coming months.  Mainly surrounding the issues of doing more with less in public services, increased open and transparent data, the challenge of the cloud and using geospatial technologies for the streamlining and greater efficiency of services offered. 

However, the biggest challenge for all of us is the transformation of how public services are to be delivered.  Related to this, The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) have recently published the Decentralisation and the Localism Bill:an essential guide which is useful, if not essential reading for us in the future.  There are six essential actions listed for turning power over from the centralised state to local communities:
1. Lift the burden of bureaucracy
2. Empower communities to do things their way
3. Increase local control of public finance
4. Diversify the supply of public services
5. Open up government to public scrutiny
6. Strengthen accountability to local people

These actions are all part of the Localism Bill and will be part and parcel of the way that all of us have to respond to delivering services.  From these six actions, we who work with GI data and analysis can easily see what impact our work can have on turning the list into reality.  From provision of local services mapping (Council facilities, GP Clusters), more open data analysis/methods for the identification of resources to the use of social classification tools and socio-demographic information for the better identification of key places for the better targetting of services.  This will assist our local communities and people to be more spatially aware of their local area and what we in public services do.  The challenge awaits and the role of geospatial technologies is key.

Lastly, I would like to wish all of our members a very happy Christmas.  See you in the new year and stay in touch.

Hendrik
Chair - Local Public Services Special Interest Group