|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: GISList: Cost of GIS Data |
| Date: |
11/19/2002 08:24:56 PM |
| From: |
Pat Waggaman |
|
|
Looks to me like the brethren over in Oz have been designing some quite
solid pricing policy guidelines. They are attempting to build a political
/ economic / philosophical framework, and then construct a pricing policy
on top. I do not see any other way to go about arriving at a functional
and equitable policy for pricing GIS.
Caution, it's a long link and you've got to chase it around the <CR><LF>
http://www.walis.wa.gov.au/walis/Base?_processid=2001010&_n1=10&_n2=2&_docname=Data%20Transfer%20for%20Custodianshi#Pricing
Now: how do we sell this sort of thinking to the damned City Managers -
who are worried much more about their vacations - or Jefes Administrativos
as they're called over here in the SE quarter of Down Under.
Pat
At 09:28 PM 11/19/02, you wrote:
>Pat
>
>You raise some interesting questions in your first paragraph. WALIS (Western
>Australian Land Information System) has a pricing policy that can be found
>at
>http://www.walis.wa.gov.au/walis/Base?_processid=2001010&_n1=10&_n2=2&_docna
>me=Data%20Transfer%20for%20Custodianshi
>
>It may help the discussion. I don't have a link to the GISlist, but your
>email got posted on by someone who does. Please feel free to pass the link
>on.
>
>Richard
>A/Senior Projects Officer
>WALIS
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Waggaman [mailto:waggaman@marimsys.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:24 PM
>To: Richard Riordan
>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 first of
> >which is the cost of the original data to the agency. Depending upon the
> >source, an agency will pay anywhere from $4 to $10 per parcel for property
> >data, which is one of the most useful pieces of information to many users.
> >If a GIS firm can acquire those data for free and sell them for $1 a
>parcel
> >then the taxpayer has just given that firm a $50K, $100K, $500K freebie
> >depending upon the number of parcels sold to a client. So I would say
>yes,
> >private firms should not be able to walk into the courthouse and download
> >all the parcels data from the county/city's database.
> >
> >Probably the second most important data layer would be streets. I don't
> >know the cost of converting
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
