Dutch Provinces publish open data, but it always looks like it is mostly geo-data, and hardly anything else. When talking to provinces I also get the feeling they struggle to think of data that isn’t of a geographic nature. That isn’t very surprising, a lot of the public tasks carried out by provinces have to do with spatial planning, nature and environment, and geographic data is a key tool for them. But now that we are aiding several provinces with extending their data provision, I wanted to find out in more detail.

My colleague Niene took the API of the Dutch national open data portal for a spin, and made a list of all datasets listed as stemming from a province.
I took that list and zoomed in on various aspects.

At first glance there are strong differences between the provinces: some publish a lot, others hardly anything. The Province of Utrecht publishes everything twice to the national data portal, once through the national geo-register, once through their own dataplatform. The graph below has been corrected for it.

What explains those differences? And what is the nature of the published datasets?

Geo-data is dominant
First I made a distinction between data that stems from the national geo-register to which all provinces publish, and data that stems from another source (either regional dataplatforms, or for instance direct publication through the national open data portal). The NGR is theoretically the place where all provinces share geo-data with other government entities, part of which is then marked as publicly available. In practice the numbers suggest Provinces roughly publish to the NGR in the same proportions as the graph above (meaning that of what they publish in the NGR they mark about the same percentage as open data)

  • Of the over 3000 datasets that are published by provinces as open data in the national open data portal, only 48 don’t come from the national geo-register. This is about 1.5%.
  • Of the 12 provinces, 4 do not publish anything outside the NGR: Noord-Brabant, Zeeland, Flevoland, Overijssel.

Drenthe stands out in terms of numbers of geo-data sets published, over 900. A closer look at their list shows that they publish more historic data, and that they seem to be more complete (more of what they share in the NGR is marked for open data apparantly.) The average is between 200-300, with provinces like Zuid-Holland, Noord-Holland, Gelderland, Utrecht, Groningen, and Fryslan in that range. Overijssel, like Drenthe publishes more, though less than Drenthe at about 500. This seems to be the result of a direct connection to the NGR from their regional geo-portal, and thus publishing by default. Overijssel deliberately does not publish historic data explaining some of the difference with Drenthe. (When something is updated in Overijssel the previous version is automatically removed. This clashes with open data good practice, but is currently hard to fix in their processes.)

If it isn’t geo, it hardly exists
Of the mere 48 data sets outside the NGR, just 22 (46%) are not geo-related. Overall this means that less than 1% of all open data provinces publish is not geo-data.
Of those 22, exactly half are published by Zuid-Holland alone. They for instance publish several photo-archives, a subsidy register, politician’s expenses, and formal decisions.
Fryslan is the only province publishing an inventory of their data holdings, which is 1 of their only 3 non geo-data sets.
Gelderland stands out as the single province that publishes all their geo data through the NGR, hinting at a neatly organised process. Their non-NGR open data is also all non-geo (as it should be). They publish 27% of all open non-geo data by provinces, together with Zuid-Holland account for 77% of it all.

Taking these numbers and comparing them to inventories like the one Fryslan publishes (which we made for them in 2016), and the one for Noord-Holland (which we did in 2013), the dominance of geo-data is not surprising in itself. Roughly 80% of data provinces hold is geo related. Just about a fifth to a quarter of this geo-data (15%-20% of the total) is on average published at the moment, yet it makes up over 99% of all provincial open data published. This lopsidedness means that hardly anything on the inner workings of a province, the effectivity of policy implementation etc. is available as open data.

Where the opportunities are
To improve both on the volume and on the breadth of scope of the data provinces publish, two courses of action stand open.
First, extending the availability of geo-data provinces hold. Most provinces will have a clear process for this, and it should therefore be relatively easy to do. It should therefore be possible for most provinces to get to where Drenthe currently is.
Second, take a much closer look at the in-house data that is not geo-related. About 20% of dataholdings fall in this category, and based on the inventories we did, some 90% of that should be publishable, maybe after some aggregation or other adaptations.
The lack of an inventory is an obstacle here, but existing inventories should at least be able to point the other provinces in the right direction.

Make the provision of provincial open geodata complete, embrace its dominance and automate it with proper data governance. Focus your energy on publishing ‘the rest’ where all the data on the inner workings of the province is. Provinces perpetually complain nobody is aware of what they are doing and their role in Dutch governance. Make it visible, publish your data. Stop making yourself invisible behind a stack of maps only.

(a Dutch version is available. Een Nederlandse versie van deze blogpost vind je bij The Green Land.)

19 reactions on “Dutch Open Provincial Data: Nothing but Geo-data

  1. Het is interessant om na te gaan waarom er in verhouding zo veel geografische gegevens als open data beschikbaar worden gesteld. Ik heb hierover ook met een aantal collega’s bij de provincie Groningen gesproken en wij denken dat dit belangrijkste redenen zijn:

    Ten eerste de volwassen webstandaarden binnen het GIS-domein en de ondersteuning van die standaarden door de software (met name van ESRI) die de provincies al lange tijd gebruiken. Voor het publiceren van open geodata waren intern geen moeilijke architectuur- of technische implementatietrajecten nodig. We gebruikten de standaarden en software die toch al voor handen waren.

    Ten tweede het Provinciaal Georegister (inmiddels vervangen door het Nationaal Georegister). Het PGR was een open data portaal van alle provincies tezamen, ontwikkeld en beheerd op interprovinciaal niveau. Op dit punt werden we als individuele provincie dus ontzorgt.

    Ten derde de bestuurlijke overeenkomst op IPO niveau waarin werd afgesproken om álle openbare geo-informatie (en niet alleen de INSPIRE gegevens) als open data beschikbaar te stellen met een public domain mark. Discussies over nut en noodzaak of over de open data licentie, konden afgekapt worden door te verwijzen naar deze overeenkomst.

    En tenslotte: iedere provincie heeft een team dat zich volledig toelegt op het verzamelen, beheren, analyseren en ontsluiten van geo-informatie. Voor ‘gewone’ data is dat lang niet altijd het geval, zeker een paar jaar geleden nog niet.

  2. Ton Zijlstra mentioned this on zylstra.org:

    A more or less routine week, although I was held back by some bugs and a cold that I probably inherited from Y now she returned to day care after the summer. This ensured I did not get around to building a report for a Dutch regional public sector body, so that is for the coming week. I did work on:

    Revised a report on potential open data impact in Serbia
    Mapped out in more detail how and why a Dutch province is publishing just a small fraction of their geo-data. As a follow-up of an earlier

Reposts

  • arthurvdmolen
  • John Vreenegoor
  • zBeer
  • Paul Suijkerbuijk
  • The Green Land
  • Hans Schouffoer
  • R.A. Posthumus
  • Arjen Hof
  • Rudi  Turksema

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.