Lost Open Data Opportunities

Even sometimes my home town of Vancouver gets it wrong.

Reading Chad Skelton’s blog (which I frequently regularly and recommend to my fellow Vancouverites) I was reminded of the great work he did creating an interactive visualization of the city’s parking tickets as part of a series around parking in Vancouver. Indeed, it is worth noting that the entire series was powered by data supplied by the city. Sadly, it just wasn’t (and still isn’t) open data. Quite the opposite, it was data that was wrestled, with enormous difficulty, via an FOI (ATIP) request.

parking-tickets

In the same blog post Chad recounts how he struggled to get the parking data from the city:

Indeed, the last major FOI request I made to the city was for its parking-ticket data. I had to fight the city tooth and nail to get them to cough up the information in the format I wanted it in (for months their FOI coordinator claimed, falsely, that she couldn’t provide the records in spreadsheet format). Then, when the parking ticket series finally ran, I got an email from the head of parking enforcement. He was wondering how he could get reprints of the series — he thought it was so good he wanted to hand it out to new parking enforcement officers during their training.

What is really frustrating about this paragraph is the last sentence. Obviously the people who find the most value in this analysis and tool are the city staff who manage parking infractions. So here is someone who, for free(!), provides an analysis and some stories that they now use to train new officers and he had to fight to get the data. The city would have been poorer without Chad’s story and analysis. And yet it fought him. Worse, an important player in the civic space (and an open data ally) feels frustrated by the city.

There are of course, other uses I could imagine for this data. I could imagine the data embedded into an application (ideally one like Washington DC’s Park IT DC – which let’s you find parking meters on a map, identify if they are available or not, and see local car crime rates for the area) so that you can access the risk of getting a ticket if you choose not to pay. This feels like the worse case scenario for the city, and frankly, it doesn’t feel that bad and would probably not affect people’s behaviour that much. But there may be other important uses of this data – it may correlate in some interestingly and unpredictably against other events – connections that if made and shared, might actually allow the city to leverage its enforcement officers more efficiently and effectively.

Of course, we won’t know what those could be, since the data isn’t shared, but it is the kind of thing Vancouver should be doing, given the existence of its open data portal. But all government’s should take note. There is a cost to not sharing data. Lost opportunities, lost insights and value, lost allies and networks of people interested in contributing to your success. It’s all our loss.

6 thoughts on “Lost Open Data Opportunities

  1. Abba

    Globe and Mail article “Residents of Toronto public housing four times more likely to be murder victims” (June 3, 2011)

    “Data analyzed by The Globe and Mail, including months of security
    reports obtained through a freedom of information request, show that
    among the 164,000 Toronto Community Housing Corporation tenants, the
    likelihood of falling victim to violent crime in general, and murder in
    particular, far exceeds that of the rest of the city’s population.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/residents-of-toronto-public-housing-four-times-more-likely-to-be-murder-victims/article2046798/

    The article contains three pages of excellent analysis and includes an interactive map:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/city-of-toronto-homicides-2008-to-present/article2044799/?from=2046798

    Reply
  2. Stephen Jenson

    Dave,

    Was wondering if you could unpack this twisted bit of pseudo-legalese in the UK’s Open Government License: “This licence does not cover the use of:… Information that has neither been published nor disclosed under
    information access legislation (including the Freedom of Information
    Acts for the UK and Scotland) by or with the consent of the Information
    Provider;”  (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm)

    All the not’s, neither’s, nor’s, by’s and with’s are dizzying and make me wonder if more opportunities are lost in the confusion.

    Reply
  3. Pingback: Open Data Advocate Fights Vancouver and Everyone Wins | Free the Data

  4. Pingback: When Washington DC took a step back from open data & transparency | Open Knowledge Foundation Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s