Malachi's contribution is an interesting perspective and I agree that
'stacked pricing' is a serious problem at present. However, I find his
conclusion difficult to understand. Why the preference for the NLPG, over
Ordnance Survey's new MasterMap Address Layer V2, which does, at least,
attempt to tie addresses to objects on the map and, with MasterMap, provides
a mechanism for recording crimes that take place in any environment and
tying them to an appropriate geographic object which may, or may not, have
an address?
I can understand why he may dislike the commercial stance taken by Royal
Mail and Ordnance Survey (the latter would say forced on them by the
Treasury, the former just acting as any plc, to maximise shareholder value).
I feel that it is entirely inappropriate for an infrastructural data set
that needs to be used by many different organisations in government, but why
opt for a data set that needs to prove itself, offers little more than
existing data sets and is not tied to the map as reliably as AddressPoint or
Address Layer Version 2?
That is why I don't want to pick winners in this war, just wish that the
coordination of a cost effective National Spatial Data Infrastructure, that
meets his needs and those at all levels of government could be resolved
without all this wrangling about who owns what.
I like the 'Free our data' campaign being run by the Guardian, but those
behind it have failed to respond to my challenge of identifying a
sustainable funding source. It certainly isn't the Treasury, which is
cutting rather than expanding commitments and which believes in the
discipline of the internal market in government to ensure best value, hence
its enthusiasm for trading funds.
Incidentally I&DeA is less a body of government than Ordnance Survey, it is
a company wholly owned by the Local Government Association, and the NLPG is
managed for them by Intelligent Addressing, a private company working to a
confidential contract. Ordnance Survey on the other hand is a government
agency working as a trading fund. It is this trading fund status, and the
claimed lack of a sustainable alternative source of funding, that appears to
drive Ordnance Survey into the various wrangles it gets into with
'customers'.
Best wishes
Bob
Dr Robert Barr
The University of Manchester / Manchester Geomatics
|