Category Archives: Twitter Chats

Twitter Chat: Civic Participation on the Geoweb

We Grow Food Trading Table ... #FoodisFree #WeGrowFood

For her Ph.D. research, Victoria Fast explored how urban food assets can be crowdsourced onto the geoweb — civic participation in action.

All cylinders were firing by the time we wrapped up our Nov. 23 Twitter chat on meaningful civic participation on the geoweb. There were many parallel conversations that we hope will continue among participants and the wider Geothink community into the future. Here we share a few highlights, as well as a transcript of the chat.

  • We should ask what criteria define “civic participation”? Even passive or unknowing involvement may qualify as meaningful participation.
  • Intermediaries (infomediaries) are major mediators of the geoweb — leading projects, supporting learning, and providing citizens with tools and open data access. Librarians were identified as important infomediaries.
  • The geoweb can enable citizen participation on all levels of ‘meaning’. Yet we need to be mindful of who is being left out & not blame the excluded.
  • There can be different benefits from short-term engagements such as hackathons and long-term involvement such as contributing to OpenStreetMap. But both can trigger enduring civic interest.
  • It can be useful to consider when geoweb contributions using open data do not qualify as civic participation.
  • Both time-decay (sustainability) and distance-decay (activities concentrating around intermediary’s location) are issues that can affect civic participation on the geoweb.

Transcript

 

 

An Expert’s View on Civic Participation on the Geoweb

By Naomi Bloch

As an early warm-up to our November 23 Twitter chat — What does meaningful civic participation on the geoweb look like? — we asked Geothink Head Renee Sieber to share her perspective. Here are a few highlights.

word cloud

More access, more communication

I think we’re in an environment where we’ve really broadened opportunities for citizens to participate through social media, through these various kinds of devices that we have, so I think it’s very exciting.

It’s an opportunity for citizens to be engaged when they don’t necessarily have the time to attend a meeting. So they can both watch city activities online through their own dashboards or they can communicate as issues arise. Perhaps cities may wish to create polls of online sentiment; they want to alert citizens of emergency situations or of interesting happenings in the city.  —R.S.

Citizen–City connection

We can have citizens more fully engaged as members of the city in reporting, in monitoring events in real-time. People generally point to open 311 applications. Open 311 comes from an old telephone service where you could dial a short number, 311, and you could report a nuisance complaint. This has moved online. So the prototypical example is the pothole. You can report the pothole, you can report a missing street sign. This can be enormously helpful to cities because they have more real-time information for problems in the infrastructure. So that’s another kind of engagement.  —R.S.

Hackathons

… Citizens can find new and unusual ways to use data that comes out of cities, in ways that cities had never thought about before. So it’s a very exciting way for people—particularly techies—to get into the mechanisms of governance and the mechanisms of government.

So I think that this is a great time to engage physically and digitally about what’s happening in your own cities. There are obviously challenges that are paired with that.  —R.S.

Digital divides

One way that we frame technology is by saying that, “It’s so easy now that anyone can participate.” The flipside of that, unfortunately, is that if you cannot participate it’s your fault: “We made it easy for you, so if you don’t want to participate — or if you cannot or you didn’t choose to participate — in that particular poll, well, we can’t be responsible if we didn’t hear your voice.”

But that ignores all sorts of reasons that people cannot participate. The digital divide and digital inequities have not gone away, they merely shift and hide. So we can be relatively sure that a lot of people have e-mail, but in parts of rural Canada we can’t always be sure that people will have sustainable connections to the Internet, to broadband connections, to connections of a sufficient speed, to connections that persist over time as opposed to connections that drop out in the middle of an e-mail transmission or a call. That’s a real challenge if all of a sudden you decide to move a good portion of your citizen activity online; you cut out a large number of people.

We may say, “Oh great, we can build all these apps for smart phones.” Well, that of course presumes that people own smart phones, that people have data plans on smart phones, that people have sufficiently high speed connections on their phones so that they can transmit, upload and download data quite quickly. We can’t make those kinds of assumptions.  —R.S.

Persistent social divides & inequities

You have to couple that with persistent digital divides and divides in general. Why are we assuming that illiteracy has been abolished in North America? We know that people still are illiterate. The hallmark of these technologies is that they’re increasingly relying on the written word. You have a phone, and you think we’re going to interact with the phone via voice. But increasingly people use their phones with text. Well, if you can’t read then you can’t participate. If you cannot see, you cannot participate. So we have all sorts of inequities based on disabilities.

So we have to be in tune to that, even as we trumpet the increased advantages and increased opportunities for people to participate. There will be people who will still find it extraordinarily challenging. Obviously people are working on solutions, but we have to be mindful of this in our rush to embracing digital engagement completely.   —R.S.

Public space meets proprietary space

In terms of technologies and processes that are shaping these conversations, obviously social media and social networks have been incredibly important. We almost take for granted now that cities have Facebook pages—that departments in cities have Facebook pages. But that’s an odd concept when you step back and you think about it. That, (a) a city should have social media, and (b) that cities need to attach themselves to a specific proprietary network.

But the fact that cities are socially engaged via these platforms, that they actually spend the resources and see the need to have Facebook pages that are updated, that they have Twitter accounts, that they have YouTube channels, that they may be increasingly looking at applications like Meerkat and Periscope to allow for live streaming—that they may be incredibly concerned that applications like Meerkat and Periscope may be used to inadvertently live stream a conversation that they heretofore thought was private—I think these technologies have rapidly transformed the way that cities feel they must now be engaged with the public.

These technologies absolutely have technological implications and they have institutional implications as well. You have to have a person who updates your Facebook accounts. That takes some time to do. You may have to find someone who automates posting not only on Facebook, but to LinkedIn, to Twitter—that automation may require a systems administrator or coder employed by the city. The fact that cities now employ social media people, these are job titles that we did not see before: open data architects, CTO [chief technology officer] positions in cities. These are processes that have changed in cities.
—R.S.

Progress is not always made to measure

I think that in the future cities will increasingly start to grapple with what succeeds and fails. I think we’re in a publishing mode right now. I think that cities are doing all they can to keep up. So, the city has to publish as much data as it can on an open data platform. They have to engage in as many social media platforms as they can. I think they will increasingly need to take hard looks at what succeeds and what fails.

It is by no means easy to evaluate these platforms in terms of success and failure. What is an effective Facebook profile? How do you measure that? Do you measure it with “likes”? OK, that’s one very technical way of measuring it, but what does a “like” tell you about meaningful engagement? It might not tell you a lot.

So it’s easy to take the low-hanging fruit of measurements to determine whether platforms are successful or not. That may not be the right way to go. Cities are increasingly looking at analytics and predictive analytics to gauge the success of these various platforms and their engagement. But once again, that tends to based on what can easily be quantified.  —R.S.

Humanizing the city

A lot of engagement between cities and citizens is much more longitudinal. It happens slowly over time. Cities and citizens build up trust. Distrust is easily gained, and very hard to get rid of.

I’ve been talking about cities as these homogeneous unions. But there are people in cities; there are citizens employed by cities, and often it is the ways that individuals in city governments reach out to individual citizens or groups of citizens, building up those linkages—using these technological platforms to heterogenize the city [that builds trust].

So, we begin to see the city and we see government as people engaging, just like you. They’re engaging with you, as opposed to being just The State (and you always must have this opinion about The State, or be in opposition to The State, or protest The State).

So [citizens can] use these technologies to sort of reach in, and stop looking at it as a monolith and more as a group of people who really are in city government because they wanted to work with citizens; they wanted to work on issues that were important and very close to the people who live in their cities.  —R.S.

 Join us for our #Geothink Twitter chat on civic participation on the geoweb: Monday, November 23 at 1 p.m. Eastern Time.

Geothink Student Twitter Chat on Location and Privacy on the Geoweb

Laura Garcia, PhD student at the University of Ottawa under Prof. Elizabeth Judge (University of Ottawa), recently conducted a Spanish language Twitter chat with students at Los Andes University.

Discussion revolved around privacy issues especially in location-based services on the Geoweb 2.0. Using the hashtag #locationmine, participants discussed how location is both ‘mine’ in the sense of being very personal and private information and a mine of data to be exploited. Protecting privacy requires education, laws, regulation, and maybe even changes to technologies (such as the creation of standards). We are in the midst of changes in the technological landscape that are already having an effect on the amount of privacy internet users can realistically have, and this will continue into the future. Not only is technology changing, our habits are also changing as well, resulting in many agreeing to terms of use without a proper examination or thought over the details. Locational privacy must be debated and defined as a response to changes in the ecosystem, to enable proper regulation and protection of rights.

Laura presented the discussants with five conclusions:

  1. One of the most important elements of the right to privacy is for the user to have control over the information shared and who has access this information
  2. It is not easy to find and/or remove the collection of geographic information made automatically by some technologies and companies. Therefore, in these cases the user does not have control over the collection of their locational information
  3. It is important for the users of the Geoweb to take an active role in the protection of their privacy
  4. Better regulations are needed. These need to be mandatory and unambiguous
  5. Civil society needs to advocate for its own rights and demand corporate social responsibility

View the chat transcript below.

Torts of the Geoweb: (or the liability question) Part I

Screenshot

Mapping Ottawa’s open data on tobogganing hills (Photo courtesy of ottawastart.com)

By Tenille Brown, PhD student in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa

Recently, on March 3rd as part of the continuing Geothink Project, I hosted a Twitter chat about tort liability with Mapping Mashups. This online forum was joined by Geothink partners and friends and the primary topic discussed was the role of tort law and how and where it fits in the context of the Geoweb, liability and moral responsibility. One active participant of this Twitter discussion was British academic Muki Haklay, a collaborator on the Geothink project more broadly, and Haklay later wrote up some highlights from this discussion, available here. I have been considering the role of tort liability in multiple contexts for some time now, both prior to the online discussion and subsequent to it. I have not been thinking of this idea so much in a typical “finding a problem” lawyerly way, but more in a “trying to understand the allocation of responsibility” kind of way. From the legal perspective, questions about how we should handle the mountains of data collected and produced by governments and citizens alike, jumps out at me. For these reasons I chose to place the focus of the Twitter chat on tort liability rather than the challenges of protecting the privacy of personal information, or copyright issues in geospatial information, which have been discussed elsewhere.

With the increase in platforms and data sources (both government and volunteered) on the geoweb, there is also an increase in opportunities for legal liability to attach to this information. With Canadian cities releasing data sets of all types of information, from proposed roadways to beach water sampling data, the liability question is not hypothetical, but of increasing importance. Of course, cities are carrying out their due-diligence by ensuring personal information does not get released, following the principles of the open government license. But still, some questions remain to be answered such as, what legal tools are in place to deal with third parties who take government information and use that information in a way that causes harm?

One example that immediately comes to mind is the use of open data to create apps for the reporting of pot-holes through cities 311 app, as happens in Toronto. A more apt example for Ottawa is the recently released information about hills open to tobogganing throughout the city, which was collated in a map here. Does liability attach to this information? If so, would information which highlights any hazards on the hill amount to a defence in a negligence action? How would we assign liability if citizenship were to take government data and create an open data app which contains outdated data?

In his write-up about the chat, I think Muki Haklay framed this problem correctly as an ethics problem. Haklay writes, “Somehow, the growth of the geoweb took us backward. The degree to which awareness of ethics is internalised within a discourse of ‘move fast and break things‘, software / hardware development culture of perpetual beta, lack of duty of care, and a search for fast ‘exit’ (and therefore IBG-YBG) make me wonder about which mechanisms we need to put in place to ensure the reintroduction of strong ethical notions into the geoweb. As some of the responses to my question demonstrate, people will accept the changes in societal behaviour and view them as normal…” In fact, tort liability principles recognize that if a wrong has been committed (sometimes even without intent), then the person who committed the harm might be required to compensate the individual. The very basis of tort law is that we ought to provide remedies for those wronged. Based on this aim, the courts don’t always uphold contracts of adhesion (which seek to limit liability).

The principles of tort liability understood as a matter of ethics and responsibility, provides opportunities for the prevention of harm and the accountability of government. This has long been recognized in the New York context, where the law stipulates that should a person trip on the sidewalk (or pothole), the city is only liable if it has been reported. To ensure reporting, every year the Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Corporationmaps out the cracks, holes and potholes throughout the city (and here). For its part, Toronto reports it has filled in almost 50,000 potholes in 2015 to date and over the past years there has been a 40% increase in drivers receiving compensation from pot-hole induced damage to cars. (The same report does not detail the number of complaints that have been made by the 311 reporting service).

The twitter conversation demonstrates that legal analysis questions, such as who has standing to bring a legal claim, who bears legal responsibility for information, and which courts have jurisdiction, are only the beginning of tort legal questions. A second analysis begs that we understand data in a larger framework which takes into account duties and responsibilities. Focusing on the prevention of harm, we could argue, that there should be a larger set of core activities or areas for which liability cannot be contracted out. These core areas presumably would pertain to the health, safety and well-being of citizenship, particularly that they be tailored to protect the interests of those who cannot be expected to know the details of tortious liability, nor necessarily how to navigate geoweb activities.

Tenille Brown is a PhD student in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa and a Geothink student member. Her research is in the areas of legal geography, including property, spatial and citizen engagement, in the Ottawa context.

She can be reached on twitter, @TenilleEBrown and via email, Tenille.Brown@uottawa.ca.

Crosspost: Geoweb, crowdsourcing, liability and moral responsibility

This post is cross-posted with permission from Po Ve Sham – Muki Haklay’s personal blog. Muki is a Geothink collaborator at the University College London and the co-director of ExCiteS.

By Muki Haklay

Yesterday [March 3rd, 2015], Tenille Brown led a Twitter discussion as part of the Geothink consortium. Tenille opened with a question about liability and wrongful acts that can harm others

If you follow the discussion (search in Twitter for #geothink) you can see how it evolved and which issues were covered.

At one point, I have asked the question:

It is always intriguing and frustrating, at the same time, when a discussion on Twitter is taking its own life and many times move away from the context in which a topic was brought up originally. At the same time, this is the nature of the medium. Here are the answers that came up to this question:

 

 

You can see that the only legal expert around said that it’s a tough question, but of course, everyone else shared their (lay) view on the basis of moral judgement and their own worldview and not on legality, and that’s also valuable. The reason I brought the question was that during the discussion, we started exploring the duality in the digital technology area to ownership and responsibility – or rights and obligations. It seem that technology companies are very quick to emphasise ownership (expressed in strong intellectual property right arguments) without responsibility over the consequences of technology use (as expressed in EULAs and the general attitude towards the users). So the nub of the issue for me was about agency. Software does have agency on its own but that doesn’t mean that it absolved the human agents from responsibility over what it is doing (be it software developers or the companies).

In ethics discussions with engineering students, the cases of Ford Pinto or the Thiokol O-rings in the Discovery Shuttle disaster come up as useful examples to explore the responsibility of engineers towards their end users. Ethics exist for GIS – e.g. the code of ethics of URISA, or the material online about ethics for GIS professional and in Esri publication. Somehow, the growth of the geoweb took us backward. The degree to which awareness of ethics is internalised within a discourse of ‘move fast and break things‘, software / hardware development culture of perpetual beta, lack of duty of care, and a search for fast ‘exit’ (and therefore IBG-YBG) make me wonder about which mechanisms we need to put in place to ensure the reintroduction of strong ethical notions into the geoweb. As some of the responses to my question demonstrate, people will accept the changes in societal behaviour and view them as normal…

See the original post here. twitter

#Geothink Chat Transcript, 20 January 2015

Twitter Chat on #IntellectualProperty, #copyright, and #geodata, hosted by Cheryl Power, PhD student at UOttawa’s Faculty of Law.

Cross-posted from Mapping Mashups.


@geothinkca Jan 20, 2:59pm Welcome all to our #geothink chat, hosted by @cheryldpower on #IntellectualProperty, #copyright, and #geodata! Thanks for joining us!
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:00pm Good evening everyone, Cheryl speaking – Let’s hear from the audience who is out there tonight? #geothink #cheryldpower
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 3:00pm Today on #geowebchat we’re joining a chat organized by @geothinkca. Use the hashtag #geothink instead! #geowebchat will be back in 2 weeks.
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:02pm Can we copyright a geodataset? My understanding is no in US; yes in Canada #geothink
@notgregorypeck Jan 20, 3:02pm #geothink hello all. looking frwrd to discussion with @cheryldpower
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 3:02pm @cheryldpower Hi Cheryl. I work at @stamen making maps with #opendata/#openstreetmap. Also doing a PhD at UBC. #geothink
@AmrEldib Jan 20, 3:03pm @cheryldpower hey, Cheryl. I’m Amr in Vancouver, and wanted to hear all about @geothinkca and #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:04pm @re_sieber #geothink See feist *US
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 3:04pm @cheryldpower I also run #geowebchat… hoping the regular #geoweb audience joins this #geothink chat.
@AmrEldib Jan 20, 3:04pm @re_sieber wouldn’t think be like copyrighting an API which is the topic of dispute between Oracle and Google #geothink
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 3:05pm @cheryldpower We’ve done a few #geowebchats about #opendata. Check out our transcripts after this #geothink chat: mappingmashups.net/geowebchat/
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:07pm .@cheryldpower I know ab Feist, although it leaves copyright door open for more complicated db structures #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:08pm Will it be interesting to explore ODBl opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ for this #geothink discussion?
@JamesLMilner Jan 20, 3:08pm Tuning in to #geothink ; not to hot on IP and copyright but know a little about open source licenses
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:09pm @re_sieber #geothink Science technology and IP & Innovation for 10 years !!
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:09pm @AmrEldib Here’s EFF on copyright case ab copyrighting APIs eff.org/press/releases… #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:10pm @re_sieber #geothink Is it an original selection of data discuss?
@notgregorypeck Jan 20, 3:10pm #geothink can you copyright dataset – according 2 interview with David Fewer, hving a dbase isn’t enough for copyright in CanPost case
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:12pm Also hot in Canada, copyright case of Canada post v @geolytica cbc.ca/news/technolog… #geothink
@notgregorypeck Jan 20, 3:12pm #geothink intrview with David Fewer – one essential ingrdient for copyright: skill of judgement in selection and arrangement of data
@TenilleEBrown Jan 20, 3:14pm @notgregorypeck Do you have a link for that interview Peck? #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:15pm .@notgregorypeck Big diff btwn Canada & US in terms of “sweat of brow” vv copyright #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:16pm .@notgregorypeck In Canada, you can count some “sweat of brow” as well as creativity in asserting copyright #geothink
@JamesLMilner Jan 20, 3:16pm ODBI license looks solid but could be more clear about commercial use as per tldrlegal.com is about Apache 2.0, MIT etc #geothink
@geothinkca Jan 20, 3:16pm @TenilleEBrown Here is the link to the #Geothink newsletter, the interview is on page 12!
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:17pm Have you been exposed to any type of licensing in association with your research project? #geothink #cheryldpower
@notgregorypeck Jan 20, 3:18pm #geothink CIPPIC, in Geolytica case, are arguing about that disctntion on ‘sweat of brow’. not easy to determine when everything is sftwre
@geothinkca Jan 20, 3:19pm @TenilleEBrown geothink.ca/geothink-newsl… #geothink
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 3:19pm @JamesLMilner Yes, #ODbL was meant to clear up a lot of the commercial use cases for #OSM, but many think it’s still not obvious. #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:19pm @JamesLMilner #geothink Do you have a link?
@ClausRinner Jan 20, 3:20pm Re @re_sieber : What do people think/know about postcodes in OpenStreetMap? Seems a great platform to collect them systematically. #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:21pm @mhaklay #geothink Do you have specific questions? Have you experience with the license?
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:21pm Copyright in geospatial realm draws on precedence of both pictures (maps), easier to copyright, v. data, difficult to copyright #geothink
@JamesLMilner Jan 20, 3:23pm @mappingmashups interesting. Just read this article about #ODbL issues openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/d… #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:23pm @cheryldpower No, I don’t have any specific question. Just noticed that it created a lot of noise from different directions! #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:23pm .@ClausRinner @geolytica case show us Canada Post asserts copyright over 6 digit postal codes, regardless of collection platform #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:25pm @re_sieber #geothink Tele-Direct v. American Business Information, need original intellectual creation
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:25pm .@ClausRinner What can be done legally in US vv copyright can’t nec be done legally in Canada. Prob for intl platform lk #OSM #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:25pm @cheryldpower e.g. lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/lega… or openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/d… #geothink vs osmfoundation.org/wiki/License #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:28pm .@cheryldpower Tele-Direct case still asserted that min degree of skill in arrangement is protected by copyright under Canada law #geothink
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 3:29pm @ClausRinner @re_sieber Related to postal codes in #OSM is the openaddresses.io project which is a parallel database w/out #ODbL #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:30pm .@cheryldpower’s mention of Feist, Tele-Direct highlights that geospatial db law derives from phonebooks #geothink
@TenilleEBrown Jan 20, 3:30pm @JamesLMilner Its aimed at the user of the software? So aimed at informing public what they are able to do with said data-set? #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:31pm Welcome @geolytica, to our twitterchat discussion of geospatial data & copyright #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:32pm Do you think there should be any type of IP protection on forms of data for example databases ? #geothink #cheryldpower
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:33pm .@geolytica has personal experience w the assertion of copyright in Canada vv geospatial data #geothink
@nixzusehen Jan 20, 3:34pm @JamesLMilner spatiallaw.com/Uploads/ODbL_a… #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:36pm @cheryldpower maybe IP protection help in securing privacy & control. e.g. indigenous groups geodata – might deter biotech abuse? #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:36pm Advertisement: #geothink researches copyright, IP and licenses regarding geoweb (also social justice, particip..). Partners inc CIPPIC, OSM.
@geolytica Jan 20, 3:38pm @re_sieber I recently gave a talk at the state of the map on this topic. #geothink My slides are here: geocoder.ca/onetimedownloa…
@geothinkca Jan 20, 3:38pm @mhaklay Are you referring to biotech companies patenting traditional knowledge? #geothink
@TenilleEBrown Jan 20, 3:40pm @mhaklay @cheryldpower yes to biotech use. As well as abuse of the areas of traditionally owned land #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:41pm @geothinkca for example. Beyond biotech, other companies using information about specific plants/resources etc. ? Not sure though! #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:41pm .@mhaklay any insight into why UK didn’t go after OSM vv crown copyright violations compared to Canada? #geothink @geolytica
@JamesLMilner Jan 20, 3:44pm further reading implies that ODbL is very patchy indeed; big issues re: when “share-alike” provisions apply spatiallaw.com/Uploads/ODbL_a… #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:44pm .@cheryldpower I’d argue that crowdsourced datasets should give IP protections to contributors, including Yelp, fb, TripAdvisor #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:45pm @re_sieber @geolytica which violations? OSM community in the UK was vocal to new members about copyright in the early days #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:47pm @JamesLMilner this study is funded to support MapBox view of the ODBl issue, so take it with a pinch of salt … #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:48pm .@mhaklay ownership not just ab copying. CanadaPost asserting tm over “postal code” o.canada.com/business/canad… @geolytica #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:50pm .@mhaklay #geothink I view the IP & privacy issues through different lens with IP potentially granting exclusive rights in a form of data
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:51pm @re_sieber @geolytica not yet, because ‘postcodes’ and addresses are a completely messy issue in the UK because of the Royal Mail #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:52pm @re_sieber @geolytica see alpha.openaddressesuk.org and …al-government.governmentcomputing.com/news/cabinet-o… as a way to overcome it #geothink
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:52pm How do we provide incentives for the open sharing of data? #geothink #cheryldpower
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:54pm As sidebar to @cheryldpower, a justif for “sweat of brow” inclusion in crown copyright is to protect investment of creator,inc gov #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 3:55pm I wonder if there is any value in studying the discourse at OSM legal talk about lay concepts? lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/lega… #geothink
@notgregorypeck Jan 20, 3:56pm .@cheryldpower #geothink probly need alternative revenue streams – open you data, but need that data to feed into use of other services
@re_sieber Jan 20, 3:57pm @mhaklay “studying the discourse at OSM legal talk about lay concepts” sounds like a potential whitepaper to me for #geothink @cheryldpower
@notgregorypeck Jan 20, 3:57pm .@cheryldpower #geothink a Google model for business. provide free service, and tunnel your customers into your other services
@cheryldpower Jan 20, 3:58pm @re_sieber @mhaklay Absolutely we should talk in the days to come #geothink
@geolytica Jan 20, 3:59pm @mhaklay @re_sieber 1M UK addresses, what percentage of the total is that? Our database in Canada currently stands at over 12M. #geothink
@geothinkca Jan 20, 4:00pm @notgregorypeck @cheryldpower Opening data may also crowdsource expensive problem-solving and optimization #geothink
@mhaklay Jan 20, 4:01pm @cheryldpower some ideas from @DrBobBarr about Core Reference Geographies agi.org.uk/storage/events… & agi.org.uk/storage/events…#geothink
@geothinkca Jan 20, 4:02pm Just a few more minutes of this #geothink chat, if you has any more comments! (We’ll return again in the future)
@mhaklay Jan 20, 4:04pm @geolytica @re_sieber en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcode_… – 29m addresses #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 4:04pm In future would love to have either #geowebchat or #geothink chat just on licenses.
@geothinkca Jan 20, 4:06pm Thanks evryone 4 joining this #geothink & #geowebchat. Thanks @cheryldpower for hosting. Well be back in th future, stay tuned @geothinkca
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 4:08pm @geothinkca I’ll archive this #geothink chat alongside the other #geowebchats here: mappingmashups.net/geowebchat/ Will post in a few days.
@mappingmashups Jan 20, 4:09pm @re_sieber The next #geowebchat is Feb 3rd. Do we want to talk about licenses then? #geothink
@re_sieber Jan 20, 4:11pm .@mappingmashups Great idea #geowebchat. Licenses for geospatial data #geothink

Special thanks to Cheryl for hosting, and @mappingmashups for mashing #geowebchat chat with our #geothink chat. Love Twitter chats? Have an idea for a Geothink Twitter chat? Get in touch: @geothinkca!