Interessante post di Slashgeo, che rimanda al blog canadese datalibre.ca:
http://datalibre.ca/2007/07/17/cost-recovery-policies-are-not-synonymous-with-data-quality/
[…]
For Parcel Datasets the study discovered that datasets that were assembled from a centralized authority were judged to be technically more advanced while those that require assembly from multiple jurisdictions with standardized or a central institution integrating them were of higher quality while those of multiple jurisdictions without standards were of poor quality as the sets were not harmonized and/or coverage was inconsistent. Regarding non-technical characteristics many datasets came at a high cost, most were not easy to access from one location and there were a variety of access and use restrictions on the data.
For Topographic Information the technical averages were less than ideal while for non-technical criteria access was impeded in some cases due to involvement of utilities (tendency toward cost recovery) and in other cases multiple jurisdictions - over 50 for some - need to be contacted to acquire a complete coverage and in some cases coverage is just not complete.
[…]
… che a sua volta cita un paper della Delft University of Technology ( Bastiaan van Loenen e Jitske de Jong)
“The impact of institutional choices relative to access policy and data quality on the development of geographic information infrastructures”
pg
–
Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@gmail.com