This appendix discusses the impact of policy on the development of the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure.
Although digital technology has removed many of the technical barriers to sharing geospatial data, government policies have not kept pace with the demands of a changing environment. New policies on such key issues as licensing, access and financing of geospatial data are needed to promote data exchange and integration, and to ensure that social and economic decisions are taken with the benefit of the best available information. Part of the role of the GeoConnections initiative is finding solutions to the difficult policy issues involved in enhancing access to government geospatial data.
A study conducted by KPMG Consulting Inc. in March 2001 on the Canadian Geospatial Data Policy on behalf of the GeoConnections Policy Advisory Node concluded:
The main goal of Canada's data policies and approaches should be the growth in use of the data. Success will be determined by how fast Canada, and its federal agencies, can supply the market with data and tools (products and services) that will satisfy the demand. The end market does not want complicated data. It wants solutions. The role of the government in the development of a strong value-added industry is crucial...In general, it is believed that the more data are available to the public, the more they will be used for decision-making and policy planning.
The ideal geospatial data policy should promote the use of such data for economic, social and environmental development, facilitate the intra- and inter-governmental distribution of data, develop the global competitiveness of Canadian industry, and maintain the client focus and "business-like" behaviour of public data agencies. The KPMG study made several recommendations on the development of Canada's geospatial data policy, as follows. GeoConnections' responses to these recommendations, written in June 2003, are in italics.
Accessibility. Digital geospatial data created by government should be as readily available electronically to the public as possible, unless there are privacy, security or competitive reasons not to do so. Restrictions on redistribution of data should be eliminated, except where commercial data used within government are concerned.
These principles are widely accepted and the Internet has provided the means for putting them into practice, certainly at federal and provincial levels.
Core framework data. Such data should be provided free as a public good, i.e. licensed at no cost, in order to encourage use, consistency and standardization.
Manitoba has led the way in this domain. Other jurisdictions are still struggling with the issue. While data distribution via the Internet is relatively inexpensive, some distribution costs must still be met by the distributing agency. Considerably more expensive is the maintenance/updating of such data, currently funded in part through cost recovery tied to distribution. GeoConnections is providing some matching funds to allow its partners to release data at no cost to users, but limits on the amount and duration of this funding have inhibited agencies from making a drastic change to their cost-recovery policies.
Thematic data. Costs that lead to private benefits (beyond the public good) should be borne by the user.
Generally accepted.
Cadastral data. Transaction fees remain appropriate for updating cadastral data at the municipal and provincial level. Efforts should be extended to integrate cadastral databases with assessment databases.
Generally accepted.
Copyright and licensing. Permit the licensed, royalty-free use and redistribution of public geospatial data, and use copyright to protect the quality of geospatial data from governments.
The restrictions discussed under paragraph 2 above still apply. In anticipation that they will eventually be lifted, the licensing sub-group of the GeoConnections Policy Node has been working on standardized licenses for unrestricted use, end use and distributor use in order to minimize the burden on users, who are often faced with a confusing variety of licenses when they access data from various sources.
Government data sharing. Encourage and allow free exchange and sharing of geospatial data within governments and between different levels of government.
While the restrictions discussed under paragraph 2 above still apply, federal agencies are making a determined effort in this direction. For example, Statistics Canada and Elections Canada have developed a common street network to meet their business needs, and discussions are under way to extend this partnership to other departments. Some provinces, e.g. Nova Scotia, have made major progress on this matter.
"Value-added services". Reasonable direct costs should be recovered from clients, both public and private, when a government agency provides some form of "value-added" service to its data, and government work should be limited to instances where the private sector cannot respond because of public good, privacy or security concerns.
Generally accepted.
An additional issue not considered by KMPG but of concern is the long-term preservation of geospatial data. Outdated editions of paper maps are relatively easy to file when updated versions are published, permitting their use for change monitoring and historical analysis. However, it is all too easy to over-write an outdated digital database with new data, losing information that "form both the cornerstone of future economic growth and development, and the foundation for the future of [Canada's] memory."
Even if old datasets are not over-written, the long-term stability of digital media and the conversion of old datasets when new technology comes along are difficult matters to address when there is little commercial advantage in doing so and limited public funding for archiving. The archiving sub-group of the GeoConnections Policy Node recognizes that data management and long-term preservation do incur costs. How to share this work and its costs in the context of a data management cycle needs to be explored.