The research is currently ‘pending license clearance’ as the Ordnance Survey are ‘uncomfortable’ with the use of the data.

Details on the work currently unavailable are in the post below, we are reserving comment at request on this one, but i guess you know our views…

Three Dimensional Collaborative Geographic Information Systems (3DC/GIS) are in their infancy, Google Earth opened up the concept of three dimensions to the mainstream but issues with data copyright, the inability to effectively tag data to buildings and the asynchronous nature of the platform have limited developments.

Second Life however provides a synchronous platform with the ability to tie information, actions and rules to objects opening the possibility of a true multi-user geographical information system. It has been notoriously difficult to import 3D data into the Second Life but at CASA we have managed to import our Virtual London model of 3 million plus buildings into a scrolling map. The map is built from prims that ‘res’ our of a central point to build accurate models based on Ordnance Survey MasterMap with height data supplied by InfoTerra.

The movie embedded below illustrates a section of Canary Wharf, London building in real-time, note the movie represents work in progress:

For past details see the Ordnance Survey/Google and Virtual London thread.

The post Virtual London: Removed from Second Life at Request of Ordnance Survey appeared first on Digital Urban.

Data is a valuable asset and without it spatial analysis would simply not exist. Google has been the analysts’ friend of late with its acquisition of high resolution aerial photography providing a base for other datasets and that all important sense of location. As such aerial imagery is one dataset that no longer have to worry about, unless of course it is needed for visualisation outside of a Google product.

The use of Google’s license for aerial imagery is however just one dataset, research labs generally obtain data from linking up with other partners or providers and piggy backing on other license agreements and it is here where the danger lies. The need to consume and apply data often brings with it complications on copyright, intellectual property rights and licensing. We spend a lot of our hours negotiating rights to use various datasets online, as is the wired nature of our lab, and it is here that the waters muddy.

Some providers are happy to help, seeing the chance for PR by linking with an independent centre and others get tied up in legal discussions and the problems of vector vs raster. The rise of KML as a standard has been particularly problematic with the web 2.0 world being based on the sharing and reusing of information, this is something many data providers have a problem with as it cuts into their bottom line.

Our now well documented example of Virtual London, Google and The Ordnance Survey is a case in point. Vector data on the Internet is a difficult proposition, it does effectively give away the dataset – free to be opened by users in software such as SketchUp and then ultimately re-imported into more high-end Geographical Information Systems such as ESRI’s ArcScene, unless it is locked behind a Google server.

We understand these issues, data collection costs can be high and companies need to make a return on their investment, but the online world is changing, it is becoming a social world with economies of scale far beyond those of even the largest companies.

Open StreetMap is a prime example of an organisation that has embraced the concept of mass participation – known as wikinomics. OpenStreet map has had its critics, mainly from the large data providers putting to question both its accuracy and completeness. We are all for the underdog and it is of note that when Dair Grant made a comprehensive and detailed comparison of the OpenStreet Map for Haywards Heath, Sussex with that of the TeleAtlas derived Google Map he found 89 apparent differences and inaccuracies.

Open StreetMap and such like are the future of data, mass collected, verified by the community at large and open source for all to use regardless of application. In a few years time we will look back at the men in suits and smile as the Web 2.0 world changes the data landscape.

As we write our lab has just managed to import 3.3 million buildings from Virtual London into Second Life via KML – see the latest post Virtual London in Second Life – Rezzing a City of 3.3 Million Buildings for full info and a demonstration movie.This raises more data issues than we care to mention, we have a feeling it could eat up most of our week….

The post The Bottom Line – Its all about Data appeared first on Digital Urban.

Data is a valuable asset and without it spatial analysis would simply not exist. Google has been the analysts’ friend of late with its acquisition of high resolution aerial photography providing a base for other datasets and that all important sense of location. As such aerial imagery is one dataset that no longer have to worry about, unless of course it is needed for visualisation outside of a Google product.

The use of Google’s license for aerial imagery is however just one dataset, research labs generally obtain data from linking up with other partners or providers and piggy backing on other license agreements and it is here where the danger lies. The need to consume and apply data often brings with it complications on copyright, intellectual property rights and licensing. We spend a lot of our hours negotiating rights to use various datasets online, as is the wired nature of our lab, and it is here that the waters muddy.

Some providers are happy to help, seeing the chance for PR by linking with an independent centre and others get tied up in legal discussions and the problems of vector vs raster. The rise of KML as a standard has been particularly problematic with the web 2.0 world being based on the sharing and reusing of information, this is something many data providers have a problem with as it cuts into their bottom line.

Our now well documented example of Virtual London, Google and The Ordnance Survey is a case in point. Vector data on the Internet is a difficult proposition, it does effectively give away the dataset – free to be opened by users in software such as SketchUp and then ultimately re-imported into more high-end Geographical Information Systems such as ESRI’s ArcScene, unless it is locked behind a Google server.

We understand these issues, data collection costs can be high and companies need to make a return on their investment, but the online world is changing, it is becoming a social world with economies of scale far beyond those of even the largest companies.

Open StreetMap is a prime example of an organisation that has embraced the concept of mass participation – known as wikinomics. OpenStreet map has had its critics, mainly from the large data providers putting to question both its accuracy and completeness. We are all for the underdog and it is of note that when Dair Grant made a comprehensive and detailed comparison of the OpenStreet Map for Haywards Heath, Sussex with that of the TeleAtlas derived Google Map he found 89 apparent differences and inaccuracies.

Open StreetMap and such like are the future of data, mass collected, verified by the community at large and open source for all to use regardless of application. In a few years time we will look back at the men in suits and smile as the Web 2.0 world changes the data landscape.

As we write our lab has just managed to import 3.3 million buildings from Virtual London into Second Life via KML – see the latest post Virtual London in Second Life – Rezzing a City of 3.3 Million Buildings for full info and a demonstration movie.This raises more data issues than we care to mention, we have a feeling it could eat up most of our week….

The post The Bottom Line – Its all about Data appeared first on Digital Urban.

The decision by the Ordnance Survey effectively puts a stop to six years of research to openly inform the public about changes to London’s built form via a publicly accessible model. Negotiations have been going on between Google and the Ordnance Survey for the last year, in two distinct stages. Our model, detailed in the movie below and containing 3 million buildings has been running locally in Google Earth during this time:

The first phase of negotiations broke down 6 months ago at a time when the Ordnance Survey were under increasing pressure to justify their licensing arrangements. Full details on this aspect can be found in the Guardian Article by Michael Cross ‘Copyright Sinks Virtual Planning‘.

The second phase of negotiations took place recently after the notable loss of Ed Parsons at the OS and his subsequent move to Google. This combined with the publication online of the Haringey Heatloss Map which effectively uses the same data as Virtual London – as pictured below – gave renewed hope of a breakthrough:

Sadly, despite the renewed efforts at all levels negotiations have now ceased between all the parties involved.

Ordnance Survey issued the following statement:

“We have had dialogue with Google concerning commercial licensing issues around our data in CASA’s Virtual London model. There are differences in what Google wants and what our licensing framework permits that mean we have not been able to reach agreement.

We provide an open, fair and transparent set of terms for providers seeking to operate in the same commercial space as each other. We cannot therefore license Google in a different way to other providers. We are completely supportive of anyone putting our data on the web as long as they have a license to do so. Regarding the reference to Haringey, it is not the building of the model that is the difference – it is the use.

There is an existing licensing model that works for the original purpose of Virtual London i.e. the availability to London boroughs etc. What Google wanted to do would take it out of those licensing arrangements.”

Google on the other hand have issued a single worded statement – simply ‘disappointed‘.

While it is fair to say that Google can be demanding the lack of movement by the OS does strike of a agency out of touch with today’s data requirements.

The Free Data Campaign has a number of posts and information with regards the practices of the OS. While we have not always agreed with them, and indeed have been warned off openly criticising the OS in the past by the powers that be, we cannot deny that the whole episode has been slightly Python’esk.

The OS currently does not have the ability to license models for public usage and this is from a government-funded and approved agency.

What can you do? In the first place join the Public Geodata campaign and if your publicly motivated lobby your MEP about the Inspire plan – see this article from The Guardian in the Free Our Data campaign.

The post Ordnance Survey and Google Statements on Virtual London in Google Earth appeared first on Digital Urban.

The decision by the Ordnance Survey effectively puts a stop to six years of research to openly inform the public about changes to London’s built form via a publicly accessible model. Negotiations have been going on between Google and the Ordnance Survey for the last year, in two distinct stages. Our model, detailed in the movie below and containing 3 million buildings has been running locally in Google Earth during this time:

The first phase of negotiations broke down 6 months ago at a time when the Ordnance Survey were under increasing pressure to justify their licensing arrangements. Full details on this aspect can be found in the Guardian Article by Michael Cross ‘Copyright Sinks Virtual Planning‘.

The second phase of negotiations took place recently after the notable loss of Ed Parsons at the OS and his subsequent move to Google. This combined with the publication online of the Haringey Heatloss Map which effectively uses the same data as Virtual London – as pictured below – gave renewed hope of a breakthrough:

Sadly, despite the renewed efforts at all levels negotiations have now ceased between all the parties involved.

Ordnance Survey issued the following statement:

“We have had dialogue with Google concerning commercial licensing issues around our data in CASA’s Virtual London model. There are differences in what Google wants and what our licensing framework permits that mean we have not been able to reach agreement.

We provide an open, fair and transparent set of terms for providers seeking to operate in the same commercial space as each other. We cannot therefore license Google in a different way to other providers. We are completely supportive of anyone putting our data on the web as long as they have a license to do so. Regarding the reference to Haringey, it is not the building of the model that is the difference – it is the use.

There is an existing licensing model that works for the original purpose of Virtual London i.e. the availability to London boroughs etc. What Google wanted to do would take it out of those licensing arrangements.”

Google on the other hand have issued a single worded statement – simply ‘disappointed‘.

While it is fair to say that Google can be demanding the lack of movement by the OS does strike of a agency out of touch with today’s data requirements.

The Free Data Campaign has a number of posts and information with regards the practices of the OS. While we have not always agreed with them, and indeed have been warned off openly criticising the OS in the past by the powers that be, we cannot deny that the whole episode has been slightly Python’esk.

The OS currently does not have the ability to license models for public usage and this is from a government-funded and approved agency.

What can you do? In the first place join the Public Geodata campaign and if your publicly motivated lobby your MEP about the Inspire plan – see this article from The Guardian in the Free Our Data campaign.

The post Ordnance Survey and Google Statements on Virtual London in Google Earth appeared first on Digital Urban.