EOM April 2005 > SHARING IN GEOTECHNOLOGIES

Continued

Challenges
Interestingly, cost recovery is not local governments’ biggest concern when it comes to the data sharing license, even though they have an exception to the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS109.050) that allows them to collect market-based fees for geographic information. Instead, they are most concerned about liability. Local governments are not comfortable with the idea that they might one day be sued should their data be implicated in an accident or other unfortunate event. Ideally, they’d like all liability to be waived. Unfortunately, reports Smith, state justice officials say it’s impossible to remove all potential liability. On the other hand, there are ways to limit liability within the license, and that’s what they are working to include in the document.

Another key part of the liability question for local governments has to do with who else outside the data sharing license signatories, might gain access to the data. The vision is that should an outside player approach the state for access to a local government’s data held by the state, the request would be “pushed back down” to the local government in question. Local government will be the custodian of the data, no matter where it resides, as indicated in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS192.410).

And that brings up another challenge. Some interpretations of the state public records Oregon Topography laws suggest that, in fact, if the state holds a local government’s data, the local government may perhaps not be able to remain its custodian. Public records laws, says Smith, may be his biggest nemesis in developing the data sharing license. “The public records laws are a mess in Oregon. And in other states, too. And, no one is willing to stand up and change them. There is too much political capital required, too many knee jerk reactions.” There are those who feel that to get the data license approved, one or more state public records laws may need to be altered. Others, including Smith, are working hard to “work around” them and avoid potential delays.

Long-term maintenance funding is another project on the docket that will impact the GIS utility and the effectiveness of the data sharing license. An existing $1 fee on property transactions is funding statewide tax maps, but what if it should be repealed? E911 fees can pay for some centerline maintenance, but can they do so forever? Funding mechanisms for other framework data sets have not yet been identified.

Successes
Laws, while creating obstacles in some areas, are encouraging forward motion in others. A state statute requires that statewide tax lot data be available on the Web by February 1, 2005. That requires that local governments provide that data to the state. If the data license is not approved by then, that process “will come to a screeching halt,” as Smith puts it. While the looming deadline may create stress, it also keeps things moving.

Another positive force for data sharing comes from state money flowing, if slowly, into local tax lot and street centerline mapping. That’s making many local governments give the data sharing license, and their participation in it, a second look.

The state’s been lucky enough over the years to collect statewide imagery reasonably regularly. The state was flown in 1996, in 2001, and is scheduled again in 2005. Funding came from what Smith calls a “Jerry Lewis Telethon” approach. ”We’d look for $50,000 here, $20,000 there, and scrape it together.” For 2005 the state will work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Farm Service Agency National Agricultural Imagery Program (USDA/FSA NAIP) to buy half-meter color/color infrared imagery in three projections (State Plane, Oregon Lambert and Universal Transverse Mercator) to serve all three levels of government. (Each has its own preferred projection.) It’ll cost $1.5 million all totaled. “A deal with USDA helps," Smith notes, “but it’s quite a lot of money nonetheless.” That imagery, it’s planned, will be part of the GIS utility.

From a personal standpoint Smith is very pleased with how far the data license has gone. “I didn’t expect to get this far,” he admits. But, starting with a broad license, which many jumped all over at the outset, worked out in the end. “No one walked away; they stayed at the table. This was important and they were going to make it work. They just needed to look at the big picture, what was best for Oregon, with some altruism.” He notes the same surprise about the ultimate success of the Open Data Consortium sample license. “After many conference calls with 60 or so diverse people from all over the United States, I didn’t think we’d ever agree. But we did, and we created something very useful.

Return to Table of Contents

©Copyright 2005-2021 by GITC America, Inc. Articles cannot be reproduced,
in whole or in part, without prior authorization from GITC America, Inc.

Privacy Statement