This is interesting. It reminded me of an article I read a few years ago positing that the reason you see so many self-evident studies floating around is because they’re the most likely to get funded (an offshoot of the publication bias phenomenon). I wonder if there are similar mechanisms at work here; if the data seems boring because it’s often safe, used to support commonly held approaches or assumptions rather than attempting to break new ground. I’d imagine novel data’s hard to come by.
I think he makes a very good point that local data – data that is referenced geospatially – is what is going to get people excited. And governments are very slow to give this away.
Yeah thats a great point. Though I hope the excitement about geotagged data calms down a bit. Since there is so little geotagged data, most organizations seem compelled to just put pins on a map for every geotagged dataset and assume its useful.
Maybe if more datasets were geotagged we’d see fewer useless maps (as the novelty wears off) and hopefully some maps that enable better insight into the data.
I don’t know. Latitude and longitude are just metadata. The data still has to be interesting.
The stuff most of us are interested in: who is doing what and who owns what. (With the where of course)
I sort of agree, but this argument would be much more compelling if the author gave some examples of the “interesting and valuable” data which he wants access to. Collecting and distributing data is not free. There is no “all data” to be released.