Public Geospatial Data Project Update Mission

This page is for brainstorming for the purpose of refining the Mission Statement of the OSGeo Public Geospatial Data Project.

Please add any entries to the following sections as well as placing your name and a +1 next to those statements that you feel are *most* important and a -1 next to those statements that you feel should not be part of the Public Geospatial Data Project. Don't hesitate to add any statements that conflict or contradict any of the other statements on the lists - this is for brainstorming.

Purpose

(Why do we need a Public Geospatial Data Project?)

• Free software is useless without data (from OSGeo Goals)
  • bitner +1
  • vdb 0. Too strong statement for me, but I can see the idea.
• Varied sample datasets are critical for GIS education
  • bitner +1
  • vdb + 1. This would greatly help, indeed.
• Free counterparts to Google Maps and friends are necessary
  • crschmidt +1
  • vdb +1
• Make it easy to find data to use in OSGeo software
  • crschmidt +1
  • vdb +1
  • nedhorning +1 Would be useful to have a utility to facilitate processing varied data to create data sets with seamless layers using a common extent, projection, resolution
• Spread the word about already available geodata collections, not only for use with OSGeo software
• Have relationships in place to respond to disasters
  • (bitner +1)
  • (crschmidt +1)
• Show off OSGeo software in action
  • bitner +1
  • crschmidt -1. This is fine if we do it en route to other things, but delaying any action based on the idea that we should be using Geodata mission as a place to 'demo' software seems silly. (I'm probably biased, because everyone uses OpenLayers either way ;))
• Extend Open Source ideals to the data world
  • crschmidt -1 -- 'Open Source ideals' as a statement is too vague to neccesarily apply to data. For example, one of the big things that makes open source 'open source' in my opinion is the ability to modify the code as you see fit. Some geodata -- aerial imagery especially -- doesn't require the ability to 'modify' to be useful, so long as other, more useful, rights are available, like reuse or deriving data from the imagery.
• Promote and facilitate open data creation, licensing, documentation, and distribution
  • nedhorning +1

Tasks

(What are we doing to meet the needs?)

• Provide hosting support to mirror any datasets
  • Crschmidt +1
  • vdb +1
• Provide computing resources and volunteer support to pull together and add value to datasets
  • bitner +1
• Provide forum to create relationships and exercise the ability to come together in disasters
• Create multi-resolution datasets and services to provide best available base map data / imagery
  • crschmidt +1: this is something that currently users can only get via Google, and it's something that I think a lot of people can help with in a way that Google will never be able to succeed at. Between ultralights, state agencies having more of a stake in a public project than in google, etc. it is a way to show OSGeo value quite clearly.
  • vdb +1
• Host applications using free data using OSGeo software
  • bitner +1
  • zool +1)
• Offer guidelines for public geodata licensing and help to connect people who are needing and offering advice
  • (zool +1)
• Actively pursue interactions with holders of GIS data (state agencies, city governments, etc.) to open their data by providing infrastructure and advice
  • crschmidt +1
  • bitner +1
  • vdb +1
• Actively pursue interactions with community data gathering projects (a la OSM) and encourage them to engage with the OSGeo community to the benefit of both groups
  • crschmidt +1
  • bitner +1
  • vdb +1

Beliefs

(What motivates are work?)

• Data should be free
  • bitner +1
• It should be easy to get free geodata (with a good quality level)
  • vdb +1
• Standards help the flow of data
  • crschmidt -1: "Standards" as the term is generally useful tend to only be useful as a way to argue. Software to read all the existing data in the world is good, and we're getting pretty good at having that to the extent we need it. With that in mind, I'd say that 'standards' are less important than well documented low-setup cost services or the like.
• Too much wanking keeps things from getting done
  • crschmidt: Not really relevant, but I agree anyway.
• Actions speak louder than words
  • crschmidt +1

crschmidt: Note that the latter two above are not really relevant in a 'mission statement', even if they are obvious to participants :)

Hurdles

(What gets in our way?)

• Licensing terms
  • +1 crschmidt. Many organizations that would love to help don't have the knowledge -- and more importantly, without strong legal backing, it's hard to offer it to them.
  • +1 vdb (+2 if I could)
• Too much talking about what we need to do, and not just doing
  • +1 vdb(me first)
• Much of the work is done under different banners
  • crschmidt +1 No centalized 'mission' thus far means we have 4 people doing four different things and no osgeo-level cooperation.
• The lack of a complete version of this document ;)
  • crschmidt +1