Comments on: Does this equation mean the end of the commercial OS ? http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/ Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:52:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » Could a surcharge on planning applications fund free data from Ordnance Survey? http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151459 Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » Could a surcharge on planning applications fund free data from Ordnance Survey? Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:36:22 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151459 [...] than doing revenue-neutral “experiments” - let’s examine the suggestion (made elsewhere) that OS’s free data should be funded by a surcharge on planning [...] [...] than doing revenue-neutral “experiments” – let’s examine the suggestion (made elsewhere) that OS’s free data should be funded by a surcharge on planning [...]

]]> By: James Cutler http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151458 James Cutler Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:21:32 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151458 Not sure too many people have actually read the full substance of the Cambridge report; it is as Ed points out not only long but loaded down with caveats and complex equations as shown above which in turn have rather broad assumptions associated with them - one reason for the range of values (£12-£85m). I would have thought, as Bob indicates above, that the focus for any campaign to generate social, cultural and economic value from GI actually needs to be less on the topographic base but more on resolving the far longer standing gripe that many wider thinkers and business professionals struggle with - address. Of course there are GI-industry specific opportunities around a liberalised OS MasterMap (all this without even beginnign to thtink about the refined-unrefined debate that will develop) but all this pales into insignificance compared to the "welfare" deriving from a liberalised useful national address gazetteer though this did not fall into the remit of the Cambridge review! "We" (GI professionals if I can count myself one still!) really need to broaden our perspective! Not sure too many people have actually read the full substance of the Cambridge report; it is as Ed points out not only long but loaded down with caveats and complex equations as shown above which in turn have rather broad assumptions associated with them – one reason for the range of values (£12-£85m). I would have thought, as Bob indicates above, that the focus for any campaign to generate social, cultural and economic value from GI actually needs to be less on the topographic base but more on resolving the far longer standing gripe that many wider thinkers and business professionals struggle with – address. Of course there are GI-industry specific opportunities around a liberalised OS MasterMap (all this without even beginnign to thtink about the refined-unrefined debate that will develop) but all this pales into insignificance compared to the “welfare” deriving from a liberalised useful national address gazetteer though this did not fall into the remit of the Cambridge review! “We” (GI professionals if I can count myself one still!) really need to broaden our perspective!

]]> By: Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » Land Registry surcharge could fund free OS data surprisingly cheaply http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151462 Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » Land Registry surcharge could fund free OS data surprisingly cheaply Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:52:09 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151462 [...] suggestion that has been made by Robert Barr (of Manchester Geomatics) and echoed recently by Ed Parsons on his blog (though I think Ed came up with it independently) is that Ordnance Survey’s non-refined data [...] [...] suggestion that has been made by Robert Barr (of Manchester Geomatics) and echoed recently by Ed Parsons on his blog (though I think Ed came up with it independently) is that Ordnance Survey’s non-refined data [...]

]]> By: Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » In the Guardian: ‘we’re now in sight of victory’; so what next? http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151466 Free Our Data: the blog » Blog Archive » In the Guardian: ‘we’re now in sight of victory’; so what next? Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:50:36 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151466 [...] Parsons, the OS’s former chief technology officer, noted that “the ludicrous merry-go-round of government departments paying [each other] would disappear, [...] [...] Parsons, the OS’s former chief technology officer, noted that “the ludicrous merry-go-round of government departments paying [each other] would disappear, [...]

]]> By: Will King http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151461 Will King Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:44:58 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151461 Just to note that the Ordnance Survey in Northern Ireland (OSNI) has gone down the route of merging with the Land Registry, Rates Collection and the Valuation and Lands Agency to create an organisation called Land & Property Services (http://www.lpsni.gov.uk/). It would be great to see geodata becoming cheaper and easier to licence because of this but I'm afraid the move looks like central govt cost cutting. Personally I doubt whether new ways of paying for OSNI's work will have even been dicussed. Just to note that the Ordnance Survey in Northern Ireland (OSNI) has gone down the route of merging with the Land Registry, Rates Collection and the Valuation and Lands Agency to create an organisation called Land & Property Services (http://www.lpsni.gov.uk/).

It would be great to see geodata becoming cheaper and easier to licence because of this but I’m afraid the move looks like central govt cost cutting. Personally I doubt whether new ways of paying for OSNI’s work will have even been dicussed.

]]> By: Rob Stapleton http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151464 Rob Stapleton Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:51:10 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151464 Bob, I was more thinking of a levy on Planning Apps as a complementary approach to a levy on Land Registrations. My logic was that spreading the load to subsidise the mapping infrastructure would only marginally increase costs to each and it would strengthen the revenue stream. In any case philosophically I like the idea of those who are responsible for development paying more for their contribution to the costs of infrastructure. My unease is that if routine Land Registrations were to be exclusively charged, in most cases they don't actually have any direct effect on the map base and it is not those who carry out the development who would pay most. You could restrict the charge to Transfers of Part but these comprise the minority of applications and it could significantly increase the costs of registration if exclusively used. Bob,
I was more thinking of a levy on Planning Apps as a complementary approach to a levy on Land Registrations. My logic was that spreading the load to subsidise the mapping infrastructure would only marginally increase costs to each and it would strengthen the revenue stream. In any case philosophically I like the idea of those who are responsible for development paying more for their contribution to the costs of infrastructure. My unease is that if routine Land Registrations were to be exclusively charged, in most cases they don’t actually have any direct effect on the map base and it is not those who carry out the development who would pay most. You could restrict the charge to Transfers of Part but these comprise the minority of applications and it could significantly increase the costs of registration if exclusively used.

]]> By: Bob Barr http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151465 Bob Barr Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:06:15 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151465 Rob's suggestion is a reasonable one, charge a levy on planning applications. However it is fraught with difficulties. Too many planning applications do not result in a change to the topographic map, or any change at all. We have already seen how difficult it is to apply a policy consistently across all planning (local) authorities while the land registries are one-stop shops (albeit national with different arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland). The logic of merging the registry aspect of OS (dealing with raw topographic and spatial identity data) with the Land Registries and the Valuation Office Agency looms large as soon as this is suggested. It is interesting that the Trading Funds report (on a quick read through) doesn't seem to recognise this logic or consider a registration route for geospatial data. Rob’s suggestion is a reasonable one, charge a levy on planning applications. However it is fraught with difficulties. Too many planning applications do not result in a change to the topographic map, or any change at all. We have already seen how difficult it is to apply a policy consistently across all planning (local) authorities while the land registries are one-stop shops (albeit national with different arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland).

The logic of merging the registry aspect of OS (dealing with raw topographic and spatial identity data) with the Land Registries and the Valuation Office Agency looms large as soon as this is suggested. It is interesting that the Trading Funds report (on a quick read through) doesn’t seem to recognise this logic or consider a registration route for geospatial data.

]]> By: Bob Barr http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151463 Bob Barr Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:55:08 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151463 Ed I am delighted that you are finally free to support my longstanding view that the most sustainable way of funding geospatial reference data is out of registration fees. We now need our friends, particularly the Freeourdata campaign, to switch to this as an objective. ...and, of course, a national address gazetteer, needs to be included. Cheers Bob Ed

I am delighted that you are finally free to support my longstanding view that the most sustainable way of funding geospatial reference data is out of registration fees.

We now need our friends, particularly the Freeourdata campaign, to switch to this as an objective.

…and, of course, a national address gazetteer, needs to be included.

Cheers
Bob

]]> By: Rob Stapleton http://www.edparsons.com/2008/03/does-this-equation-mean-the-end-of-the-commercial-os/comment-page-1/#comment-151460 Rob Stapleton Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:32:46 +0000 http://www.edparsons.com/?p=647#comment-151460 A levy on Land Registry transactions is one possibility but how about a levy on Planning Applications since they are what generates the most actual change to the base map? After all, developers pay for putting in other infrastructure such as roads, why not the mapping infrastructure as well? A levy on Land Registry transactions is one possibility but how about a levy on Planning Applications since they are what generates the most actual change to the base map? After all, developers pay for putting in other infrastructure such as roads, why not the mapping infrastructure as well?

]]>