|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: GISList: Cost of GIS Data |
| Date: |
11/19/2002 11:43:40 AM |
| From: |
David Nealey |
|
|
I agree with Pat that my percentage suggestion may be cookbook-ish but the
fact of the matter is that someone in a government agency will eventually
come up with the idea of charging for GIS data. So how do you do that? Do
you charge on the basis of file size? Do you charge on the basis of linear
miles of streets and roads? Or do you charge on the basis of cost to the
agency? That is what we as users need to help Rich with.
The other way that we can help Rich is to tell him if our county or city
charges for data and if they do, how much.
Well I live in Jefferson County, Colorado, gateway to the Colorado Rockies
and the best skiing in the world, as I am told.
JeffCO does charge for GIS data. The fees are posted at
http://ww4.co.jefferson.co.us/cgi-bin/catalog/cat.cgi/search?SEARCH=gis
and they range from $0.10 to $4,100 depending upon the type and amount of
the data you want. $0.10 buys you a xerographic reproduction at 8.5 x 11
or 8.5 x 14, reasonable. $4,100 buys you all the parcels data. JeffCO also
charges $50 an hour for custom mapping, reasonable.
If I remember correctly, the fees have come down in the past couple years as
more individuals and companies have put pressure on the County to make the
data free or very inexpensive. So a municipality can start high and lower
the fees or start low and raise them.
I still say that using a percentage of the cost to acquire makes a lot of
sense because it is easy for a buyer to understand how you came up with the
fee. If it costs the city $1,500,000 then it should be able to charge a
percentage of that for maintenance. That amount could be 1%, 0.1%, 0.001%
or 0.0001% of the cost of conversion. If I pay the same amount as the next
GIS firm or real estate developer then I will feel that I got a fair deal.
IMHO it is a usage fee. I pay to use streets in JeffCO each year when I
renew my vehicle registration. That fee is to pay the workers to maintain
the streets with good-quality asphalt.
David Nealey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Waggaman" <waggaman@marimsys.com>
To: "David Nealey" <dnealey@worldnet.att.net>: "Robert Heitzman"
<rheitzman@hotmail.com>: <Julia.Harrell@ncmail.net>: <gislist@geocomm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: GISList: Cost of GIS Data
> David Nealy's neat percentages of cost which he views as appropriate fees
> to charge users are an inconvenient "cookbook". They do not take into
> account the potential market size for a given government entity's data.
> Some types of cities will have a larger market for their data than
> others: those with the larger markets will be able to recover more cost
> and perhaps make money on the data acquisistion - resale process, those
> with the smaller market will lose money.
>
> The question becomes one of "public good". Is GIS data worthwhile as a
> public good? We GIS folks tend to think so, but our opinion is a bit
> questionable as most of us put our "fatback and hominy grits" on the table
> with GIS. Basic data seems to pass the test of "high leverage public good
> investment" in that the returns are felt throughout the economy, and are
> narrowly profitable for few market players. This - over the long haul -
is
> the diffiult question, and the important one. Comments?
>
> There is a nasty overlooked side-effect of "expensive" GIS data - and that
> is corruption. The lessons of development economics are quite clear, to
> the extent that a regulatory choke point is created, a government official
> with the power to open and close the choke point will be tempted
> economically in proportion to the value of whatever is on the other side
of
> the choke point, and his/her control over that shutoff. In other
> words: the more power a regulatory official has, the more likely they are
> to be tempted by corruption. The higher the prices for the data, the more
> its flow into the market will be restricted - remember the "public good"
> argument above, the data doesn't get into commerce where it begins to help
> a large number of citizens: and with higher prices, the "stopping power"
> of the choke point rises and hence the power of the regulatory folks to
> create "sweetheart deals".
>
> In the long run this argument, while forcing municipalities and counties
to
> justify their GIS expenditures more than at present - e.g. the taxpayers
> will fund it - may be a powerful assist in creating "free GIS data".
>
> My 2 pesos worth,
>
>
> Pat
>
>
> At 06:33 PM 11/18/02, David Nealey wrote:
> >Robert,
> >
> >There are several reasons why a municipal government agency should be
> >concerned with a private business reselling data at a profit. The
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
