[Talk-us] Fwd: State Park Boundary shp file

Kevin Kenny kkenny2 at nycap.rr.com
Fri Jan 22 14:00:31 UTC 2016

On 01/21/2016 04:32 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org 
> <mailto:baloo at ursamundi.org>> wrote:
>     Would it be possible to get some advice on how to best submit this
>     form for the outlines Oklahoma's state parks?  I'm not quite sure
>     where "using the public record to assist in contributing to
>     OpenStreetMap" lies on the binary option "personal" or
>     "commercial" use, and ODRT basically said, "You want to know where
>     the state park boundaries are? File a FOIA Request..."  Who says
>     red states favor small government? /s
> Filling out the form I would definitely indicate commercial use, but 
> that could still lead to licensing issues.
> I ran into the same thing in Arizona, give me money and we'll give you 
> data. I did a survey [1] of Washington County's, most have portals to 
> download GIS data, but some are like Oklahoma, no way they'll let you 
> have the data you paid for. (I'll let you guess how they vote.)
> We all picture Oklahoma as a big open prairie, but having been there I 
> know that's not true. It's unlikely a mapper could take a gps device 
> to the perceived edges of parks to map them. Is it worth considering 
> applying for a grant to obtain the data? Park boundaries are not like 
> roads which can easily be added from a survey. Formally requesting 
> them using grant money could help getting the correct licensing for 
> import into OSM. Otherwise, there could be licensing problems.
> Clifford
> [1] 
> https://glassman.cartodb.com/viz/68d4aa30-97f0-11e5-92ce-0e3a376473ab/public_map
One issue that a number of states have is that they contracted out the 
production of the GIS files, and unwisely entered into contracts that 
allow them to redistribute the data only on the contractor's terms. They 
couldn't agree to ODBL even if they wanted to.

Other localities see GIS as a profit center. In New York, at least, this 
is perfectly lawful. The Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit said so. 
(There's a circuit split on the issue, if memory serves.)


73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

More information about the Talk-us mailing list