Boston goes all digital and stuff

That's cool (0.00 / 0)

And s**t.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:15:33 AM CDT

This is great if and only if (6.00 / 1)

This is great if and only if
* It becomes easy for users to add complaints digitally, using a computer, cell phone, iPhone, etc.  That doesn't mean that each complaint shouldn't be filtered, verified, logged correctly, etc. before being posted "live" of course.
* It stays up to date.  Something fixed?  Mark it as fixed -- but keep it visible for x months so that citizens can confirm that it's fixed (and to celebrate the victory).  Something not fixed because it's not broken?  Note that and explain it.  Something not fixed because it's scheduled to be fixed later (on its own, as part of a bigger project, etc)?  Note it.
* It includes the ability for people to complain about:
  - potholes
  - broken sidewalk
  - inadequate curb cuts
  - broken parking meters
  - trash barrels full
  - unsafe stairs or other ped issues
  - broken/obstructed street lights
  - tree pit problems
  - traffic sign problems (missing, upside down, etc)
  - MBTA, state, bordering city/town and other non-Boston jurisdiction problems.  Boston can't fix 'em, but they can forward them.

Methinks this'll get the most mileage where people tend to be on foot.  That's when it's easiest to use a PDA/phone to capture the information and forward it onward.  I'd also be willing to bet that there'll be more information where people tend to be standing around -- bus stops.  After all, every once in a while a bored person will notice something and himself forwarding on a complaint.

If it is quite successful, it would be really great if neighboring cities and towns used the same interface for their own jurisdictions.  After all, people who live near the borders are impacted by both jurisdictions, and if it works, why not copy it?

---

by: stomv @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:17:29 AM CDT

Doncha' love election years?. (0.00 / 0)

Serious stuff gets done and for all the right reasons....to win support of constituents.

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:25:33 AM CDT

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

It took me a bit to realize that the cell phone button opened a new window where most of the useful stuff was. I wonder how many users will miss that altogether. But it is nice that they're making this data available.

Why didn't they just use the Google Maps API to overlay their data on? Seems archaic to inflict yet another map paradigm on users.

Overall, seems like an interesting project, but it's too bad the developers chose the direction they did. This feels much more like the old school government centralized approach to distributing and controlling information with little or no ability for end-users to contribute or manipulate the data. Using Google Maps would have leveraged and contributed to a true community tool. 

Verdict: Nice attempt but ultimately too old-fashioned to be really useful on the modern web. 

---

by: kaj314 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 11:56:38 AM CDT

Google maps does not have the same data (6.00 / 1)

Google does not have map data for property boundaries in the City for one thing. For another, I suspect they found better prebuilt support for programming APIs for their data than they would get for Google.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 13:02:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Google as a tool (0.00 / 0)

Google provides you with all the tools to create extremely rich overlays on their maps from your own data (in the form of polylines). Additionally - if one really must use Flash - Google also provides a Flash API. It's not a question of Google "having" property boundary data. It's a question of someone, as a developer, layering one's property boundary layer (or any other data you want) onto a Google map. There are so many examples of this already on the web that it's a little silly to point them out. A cursory Google search will turn them up.

As for support - I find it highly suspect to claim that one gets better support from a single vendor than you would form the worldwide community developing with and supporting each other with Google maps. Check out the millions-strong Google Maps Developer newsgroup. Unless by "better prebuilt support" he means "the ability to line a crony's pocket".  

---

by: kaj314 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 13:23:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure... (0.00 / 0)

the key is that Boston has all kinds of GIS data -- precise locations of curb cuts, utility lines, manhole covers, that sort of thing.  Google maps is nowhere near that accurate -- often times they don't even have street addresses right.

Is anyone kicking around BMG a GIS expert who can comment?

---

by: stomv @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 13:47:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Google (0.00 / 0)

is great for that very reason. Although I do not do it for a living, I have done much with Google's mapping API. They allow you to plot or overlay anything you have data for. This way just about any company, government, non profit or whomever, can utilize a look and feel most web users are familiar with. All you need to do is add your data and whatever functionality you are looking to give users. I just embed the google maps within whatever I am building. Also, for entities under a certain amount of hits (I forget the threshold) it is free. I do remember thinking the amount of hits per day was very high.

Also, the community of developers is a key advantage to a single source vendor/custom solution.    

---

by: kaj314 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 14:01:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think they use ESRI ArcInfo (0.00 / 0)

And it may tie into their assessor's database, too.  Not sure.

The object is to have all parcels, boundaries, zoning overlays, streets, utilities, etc., entered as GIS data with surveying accuracy, and linked to other municipal databases like assessing, and compatible with geographic databases such as MassGIS.

Towns like Concord have made excellent progress with this sort of integration.

---

by: bostonshepherd @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 14:01:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Google street addresses are not great (0.00 / 0)

They might get you within a hundred feet, but other than that you shouldn't rely on them.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:34:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Note that Boston did also publish its static GIS data (0.00 / 0)

for location of police stations and property boundaries etc. So if you want to go ahead and overlay that on a Google map, knock yourself out.

I think Google is cool, but let us not forget that they are a for-profit enterprise. They don't do anything out of altruism.

I love open source as a concept and large developer communities, but the simple fact is that most open source projects are total crap and you don't actually get that much useful free support from such communities because they get flooded with newbie questions while the people who actually know what they are doing are too busy to help you. The fact is that the biggest cost to building software is the labor it takes program it. If you can buy a library (or if you are lucky get a quality free one) that does what you need, it is well worth the money in saved labor.  

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:50:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Your answer (0.00 / 0)

doesn't make any sense. To say that google is a "for-profit enterprise" is nothing more than misdirection. Google allows a limitless amount of developers worldwide to share code, best practices and a User Interface that is universally accepted (or close to it) as a standard of mapping data today -- for FREE. ESRI is expensive to purchase and more expensive to develop around. The city clearly paid a developer or developers to do this work, the tools they selected or the city selected are more expensive and limited in their respective communities. I would guess that the mayor's team has been a booster of Microsoft and the like, vs. open source tools.

State and city governments in these times should be choosing open source solutions. Open source solutions are cheaper to maintain. License fees do not exist. Staff developers can benefit from thousands of user groups and forums set up to provide FREE advice, guidance and code. This allows the city to not rely on high priced consultants to maintain a niche set of tools.

 

---

by: kaj314 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:16:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree to some extent (0.00 / 0)

My point was that the advantages of open source is greatly exaggerated. You are right that open source solutions can be great, but it entirely depends on the software and who is behind it. Most of that free advice, even for the better open source projects, is worth less than what you pay for it. I can't tell you how many times I have asked questions on developer forums only to have it answered incorrectly or not answered at all. What you save in license and software fees you can easily end up paying in labor costs to fix bugs and work around limitations. Developer communities can dry up over night if some new technology eclipses the one you depend on. Having said all of that, I do think that the Google map APIs and community aren't going to disappear anytime soon.

I totally agree that governments should make as much of their data free as possible and this is no exception. Boston has at least published some of their static GIS data, so developers can overlay it on Google maps if they want. The missing piece is an API for getting the dynamic data. That will obviously require some work on someone's part.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:08:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The issue is lock-down (0.00 / 0)

if you make the code and the data open source, then you are never subject to whim, contract, bankruptcy, or any other issues with your vendors.  You've got a problem with your vendor?  Just hire another one.

Note I used the word "hire".  Nobody's argued that open source is free as in beer for a company.  At minimum, your IT guys need to install and maintain, patch, and migrate data.  Even that isn't free.  Want customization, expansion, or new drivers?  That isn't free either.  But, in the case of a government, why not share the results with society?  Why replicate work when, for the government, there's just no downside to sharing the data or the (gov't updated/expanded) code?

---

by: stomv @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:52:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree regarding data (0.00 / 0)

Public data should be freely available, but governments shouldn't necessarily be constrained to always use open source software. Of course, if your contract with the software vendor gets in the way with making your data free, then there is a problem.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:53:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not on iPhone, not sure about other PDAs (0.00 / 0)

I agree with the previous commenter that this is the kind of thing where developing it is only about 20% of the battle. Keeping it updated and accurate - even when it is embarrassing to the City - is the key to it being a useful tool. I wonder how committed to that approach City Hall is? Especially after the election, no matter who wins. I hope they will, but I fear this may die a quiet death come December.

One other note: I also agree with the comment about it being most useful when on foot. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but this is a flash application, and a reasonably slick one at that. Unfortunately, "slick" also implies "resource hog", which may result in this not working at all on cell phones and PDAs. The iPhone is totally out, as it doesn't run Flash. Not sure about Windows Mobile or Android phones, but even if you can launch it, I suspect it won't be pleasant to use.

---

by: dogzilla @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 12:10:50 PM CDT

Good news, bad news (6.00 / 1)

The fact that they've put this information on line is great news. The technology they chose is terrible, and reveals precisely what's wrong with relying on government to do things like this.

What the city needs to do is publish the feeds -- the raw data -- from which this site is generated.

The technology they've used is from ESRI. It is a big, clunky, totally-outdated monstrosity that is always the first choice of government agencies because ESRI dominates the top-down big-brother view of GIS that top-down big-brother government typically prefers. Virtually all government legacy data is in ESRI format.

Google does not have map data for property boundaries in the City for one thing. For another, I suspect they found better prebuilt support for programming APIs for their data than they would get for Google.

The ESRI api's are first-generation tools. Better "prebuilt support"? No, they are instead just deeply-embedded proprietary hooks whose purpose is to maintain license revenue to ESRI.

A wealth of open-source tools exist for transforming ESRI data into, for example, KML (Keyhole Markup Language), which is itself directly importable into Google Maps. I haven't been tracking Microsoft Earth, the new offerings from MapQuest, and the other big consumer-oriented web map technology vendors, but I can assure you that all of them are moving to KML. This is why ESRI is so scared.

This highlights a crucial issue: The data itself is public. The format (ESRI) is proprietary, but the data was bought and paid for by municipalities and therefore should be freely published (free as in beer, in addition to free as in speech). In practice, this means that ESRI can enforce its licensing terms on users of its api (see the initial screen from the new site), it may not enforce any such restrictions on entities who chose to publish the data in an alternative format (like KML).

As a related example, the ESRI data for Brookline has been available for years (see here, for example). Be sure to follow the embedded link to look at the "GIS Dictionary" itself -- there's a ton of cool stuff there. The town charges a modest fee for copying and administrative costs. I invite anybody who wants to pay me to translate this data into KML to email anytime :-).

Stomv asks:

the key is that Boston has all kinds of GIS data -- precise locations of curb cuts, utility lines, manhole covers, that sort of thing.  Google maps is nowhere near that accurate -- often times they don't even have street addresses right.

Is anyone kicking around BMG a GIS expert who can comment?

Google maps is as much a framework for maps as a single product. The maps (and satellite imagery) used by Google are, in fact, generally supplied by the municipality in question. If the maps of Boston used by Google are inaccurate, it is because Boston is generally slow to upload information to Google. Similarly, the satellite imagery is provided by local sources (check the copyright notations embedded in the browser image). Any website provider who chooses (including Google) can use the Google API to provide highly-accurate maps if desired -- this is why the KML is so crucial.

I should note that the problem with street addresses is a "geocoding" error (combined with some specific privacy safeguards imposed by Google). The maps themselves are accurate (you can confirm this by comparing the satellite and map views); the translation of a street address to a map location is not. The ESRI data is already geocoded (hence its value), and so should lay right on the existing maps.

The city needs to put the raw ESRI datasets online. Even better would be for the city to transform them into KML.

When the dust settles, GIS information like this will be published by non-governmental sites, using data supplied by municipalities. This is an excellent example where the city should simply publish its data, and rely on independent web site publishers to do useful things with it.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 14:37:46 PM CDT

They did publish the data (0.00 / 0)

Check out the GIS Data tab on the left. They have data files for land parcels, fire and police districts, political wards and city council districts. Hopefully they will add more...

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 15:58:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The data you mention (0.00 / 0)

is available in a few different places and not what we are talking about. The data the mayor should make available is the data added everyday. Otherwise we, tax paying citizens have to rely on the Menino administration's tools to dissect the data.

All information added should be available via an API or continuous stream so the data is available to all citizens of Boston. Not just the mayor, even though I know this is "HIS CITY."

---

by: kaj314 @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:24:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You need both data (0.00 / 0)

The dynamic data requires a programmatic API which will require a bit more work. I agree that it would be great if they could do that.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:21:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't sound like you read the license agreement! (6.00 / 1)

In order to see anything, you have to agree to the offered license agreement. I call your attention to the following:

2) Restrictions on Use. The Licensed User shall:
...
c. not utilize the GIS Data for any purpose or project other than the permitted use(s) as set forth in this agreement.

3) Permitted Uses. Licensed User is granted a nonexclusive right to have and use the City's GIS data provided the Licensed User shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of this License. Licensed User may use the City's GIS Data in the form provided by the City for User's own internal business or organizational purposes and for no other purpose. The Licensed user may modify any GIS Data or merge any GIS Data into other databases for Licensed User's own use. Licensed User may have and use GIS Data on a corporate-wide basis and may use the GIS Data on an unlimited number of Licensed User sites, provided that access to the City's GIS data is restricted from use by non-Licensed parties or individuals.

This expressly prohibits using this data in the manner we're describing. This license is bullshit. The taxpayers paid for this data, the taxpayers own it (assuming that the data was created by ESRI under contract to the City of Boston as a work-for-hire). The city needs to either translate this to unrestricted KML or modify the license agreement to allow third-parties to do the same.

This license agreement is onerous and absolutely prohibits precisely the kind of use that the site seems designed to provide. Until it's changed, an independent software developer would be a self-destructive fool to use it anyway.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 16:48:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, that sucks (0.00 / 0)

They should fix that license if they can. I wonder if the license is required by ESRI. If so, that would be a good reason to dump them.

I don't have a big problem with the city paying for software even if there are possible open source solutions, but I would like to see the data made public.

On the other hand, one could argue that this data could be a source of revenue for the city.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:29:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, open source != free as in beer for the customer (0.00 / 0)

The razor may be free, but you've got to buy custom blades for your own face.  That's not a bad thing in and of itself.  The point is that the code itself is owned by the city, not a vendor who merely licenses it to the city.  This means the city is free from the risks associated with the vendor, from rising prices to bankruptcy to copyright claims to the requirements of restricting use by citizens.

The data shouldn't be used as a source of revenue.  Using it to help everyone identify and improve the city itself is it's own reward.

---

by: stomv @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:55:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This license is for the API and tools, not the data. (6.00 / 2)

The license is required by ESRI in order to use their api. The entire site is built using ESRI software (for example, the context menu in the main map offers "About ArcGIS API for Flex..." as an option). The entire motivation, from ESRI's perspective, of offering this API is so that they do not publish the data that it renders, except by attempting to protect it with this license.

The city should view this site as an interesting prototype. The city should then publish its GIS datasets, free of charge and free of license restrictions, on the city website (perhaps on the MIS page). The city should actively promote the use of its data by independent developers, just as the MBTA recently began doing in connection with Google transit.

This information already belongs to the taxpayer. The best way to create revenue from this data is to put it in circulation. The value of information is created by publishing it.

I doubt that the ESRI restrictions on Boston are any different from those on Brookline. I think that Boston has, so far, failed to correctly assert its rights of ownership of its ESRI data.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 08:44:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But doesn't Brookline sell its data? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 09:57:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No (6.00 / 1)

Brookline charges a very small fee that covers the cost of making the data available. Once delivered, the Brookline data has no restrictions.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:08:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Followup... (6.00 / 1)

Brookline delivers the data on a CD, containing the data, that the town burns and delivers to the requester. My understanding is that the fee mostly covers the cost of burning the CD.

I strongly suspect that, with a little bit of encouragement, the town could put that data online and avoid the fees. When I say "free of charge", I suppose I'm ok with "minimal charge" -- something on the order of, say, a few hundred dollars for the entire dataset (all the dictionaries). It does cost any municipality something to put the data online, operate the servers that provide access to it, and so on. So I have no problem, in practice, with charging a nominal fee to recover those costs.

The more important thing is that the resulting data must be free of restrictions. As an ISV, I ought to be able to do anything I want with it -- bundle and sell access to it, create premium packages for contractors and real-estate developers, generate free consumer sites based on it, and so on.

Brookline lets (in fact, encourages!) me to do that. The current Boston approach does not.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 10:17:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Over/under (0.00 / 0)

How many times this just happens to get mentioned as one of tom's "achievements" for the city at the debate tomorrow? I say 3.

---

by: Bay State Buckeye @ Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 23:24:34 PM CDT

Who knows (6.00 / 2)

at least he has "achievements". What "achievements" do you think the other candidates are going to claim?

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:30:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would also like to see voter data published (0.00 / 0)

Political parties and campaigns pay for databases of registered voters and lists of people who actually showed up to vote on a given day. These are public records that you can go lookup in the election office, but they won't give you an electronic version for free.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 13:17:55 PM CDT

It's $1 in my town (0.00 / 0)

to pay for the CD.  Have you tried in your community?

---

by: stomv @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 13:53:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In Boston (6.00 / 1)

it is $100.00 for the CD of voter registration data. Last time I requested the data, I didn't receive all the data I needed to do a proper analysis. If I remember correctly, the $100 fee only got me the voter list, and not what elections people voted in.

The state/city voter id field is essential in linking any of the data received with historical election activity or historical data collected. This very important field was left off the file, and I was told it was unavailable.

Also, the fee should be consistent across the state. Whether the file is 200MB or 2MB the cost of burning a CD does not change. The data should be readily available online for free or a nominal service/convenience fee. I don't mind paying a small fee because I don't have to leave my home to get it.  

---

by: kaj314 @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 14:07:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]