I welcome Survey of India (SOI) efforts to issue clarificatory guidelines on NMP in a year’s time.

one major concern published in July’05 issue of Coordinates has been addressed. It is mentioned in the guidelines that registration of users and licensing is required in respect of digital data/maps. This by implication means that it may not be necessary for hard copies. It, however, has not been made absolutely clear that it will be so. It appears that none of the other concerns have been addressed.

It has again been emphasized in Para 9 of guidelines that previous instructions issued from time to time will hold good, but for these modifications. This clearly indicates that NMP and the guidelines are thoroughly incomplete as existing or previous map policy or instructions are not available in public domain. It will be in order if these previous instructions are compiled and made available on the website.

Para 10(ii) General- “highest accuracy” needs to be defined in quantitative terms.

Annexure 1A of NMP appears as Annexure B in Guidelines. It appears that it has been modified. It is noted that it suffers from the same shortcomings. A few are discussed here:

a) Limits of cultivation was appearing in NMP but it is omitted form the guidelines.

b) Transmission lines have not been explained or elaborated.

c) Chimney, monuments, brick kiln etc. are missing.

d) Drains, water pipe lines etc. have not been mentioned.

e) “All bungalows” is vague and needs to defined/elaborated.

f) “Relative heights” is missing from item 7 “Relief”.

g) Coastal features like High Water Line, Low Water Line are missing.

h) Mountain features like Cliff, Sheet rocks etc. are missing

It would therefore be proper if list of details/features, which should not appear on OSM series maps is given instead of the other way round. It is suggested that the authorities should consult the booklet “Instructions to Plane-Tablers” published by Survey of India in order to prepare a comprehensive list of details to be shown or not to be shown as the case may be so that such omissions do not occur.

It is mentioned as a footnote that “Contours and Heights” will not be available as per MOD instructions. Restricted zone for OSM maps will then have to be defined. Does it mean that there will be no contours and heights in OSM maps representing a very large portion of territory of India?

UTM projection has been decided for India though TM or LCC would have been more suitable. Even if UTM is decided its grid values and ticks should be shown on OSM maps.

Para 2 d – Export of all maps/data on scale larger than 1:250,000 are prohibited as per orders of 1963. Should this not be revised in view of Internet and various websites such as goggle? Should we not be more realistic?

It is again pointed out that there should be serious reconsideration on producing maps in WGS 84.

The announcement of the guidelines for NMP has dampened the euphoria generated last year by the NMP declaration. The skeptics have been proved right once again. While announcing the NMP last year, the government had admitted that “the technological changes around the world rendered many features of the existing map policy redundant and anachronistic “and” its continuance tended to impede free flow of information and engendered high opportunity costs for a developing economy”. Unfortunately the guidelines do not reflect this concern. It was hoped that with the bifurcation of the maps into OSM and DSM series, the OSM maps needed for civilian purposes would be easily available without much hassle. The guideline document shows that even OSM series of maps will not be free from the fetters of bureaucracy and overplayed security obsessions.

The provision that strictly forbids the digitization of SOI analog maps will put a serious impediment to increasing geo-spatial technology applications in which SOI maps are used as base for projection and geo-referencing. People have been clandestinely digitizing SOI maps for their projects and were hoping that this restriction would be lifted , but their hopes now being razed, they will be forced to continue it stealthy.

Maintenance of Map Transaction Registry (MTR) would also put restrictions on the free exchange of data between collaborating organizations and even within the same organization working from different centers. When the data is already classified as OSM the logic of again restricting its free use is difficult to comprehend.

The document says that the SOI encourages value addition. But here again the provisions are highly restrictive. Submitting ‘a business model indicating the products to be generated and marketing strategy’ and executing an MOA with SOI would be necessary for large organizations and industry, but it would dampen the initiative and innovation of small users and individuals who contribute greatly to the technological advancements.

Exaggerated security concern seems to be the main problem afflicted to Indian mind. In the world today with the easy accessibility to high resolution satellite pictures, no information can be kept secret. Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi’s statement that the satellite images of the country’s defence installations displayed on the Google Earth website do not pose a threat to the Indian Air Force is a pointer in this regard. Then, how the free use of maps which are classified as OSM can impact our security?

A NMP should encompass all the geospatial data products: survey maps, satellite imagery, aerial photographs, and various thematic maps etc. It should be able to specify role of all the major stakeholders. It should be futuristic, should encompass and promote technological innovations and should reflect present and future paradigm of development. However, the present NMP revolves around the survey maps of SOI. It puts SOI on the driver’s seat and role of other stakeholders are merely a value adder. What about the huge amount of spatial information developed over the years by various other government departments and private sector? In all, the NMP is nothing more than guidelines of dissemination for SOI’s topo maps. The name NMP seems to be a misnomer.

The second objective of the NMP is ‘to promote the use of geospatial knowledge and intelligence through partnerships and other mechanisms by all sections of the society’. However, both the policy and the guidelines are silent about partnership process with the major stakeholders dealing with spatial information. The MNP mandates SOI to decide issues of liberalizing access of spatial data to user groups. Other spatial data creating organizations have to abide by the instructions of SOI.

Committing by the SOI to have available all information at all SOI offices and on the website is a commendable step. However, it does not mention the time frame. SOI must specify the time frame of data availability area as well as scale-wise.

The initial press announcement of May 19, 2005 had mentioned that aerial photographs, after masking of vulnerable areas/vulnerable points would be freely available for processing and project generation. It was also mentioned that private agencies would be permitted to carry out aerial surveys in all parts of the country using Public Domain Datum, provided they be registered and accredited by Survey of India. However,
both the earlier policy document and the recent guidelines are silent on aerial photography or aerial photographs.

Section 3 (c) of the recent guidelines mentions that “unauthorised copying and distribution of SOI digital data are strictly prohibited”. But what this copying means, is not clear, because once an organization is licensed by SOI it should be able to make copies for its organizational use.

Section 4 of the recent guidelines states that digital data will be available in single/ multiple/ commercial licensing for general use, value adding and marketing. At the same time it warns that encryption technology has been incorporated into the digital products. The original data will be destroyed if the data were subject to copying activities. The issue here is how any organization can make use of the data in order to add value to it unless decryption key is provided for various GIS analysis and value addition.

Section 6 (iv) of the recent guidelines mentions differential pricing of SOI products with concession to universities, research organizations and deserving NGO’s, which is a welcome step.

The guidelines also mentions that contours and heights will not be available in restricted zones as per MOD,s instructions. In the Twenty First Centaury, when high resolution satellite-derived contour information is freely available to potential enemies, 5-10 meter contours may not be of strategic importance for our country. Considering the importance of contours especially for water resource management and urban planning, 5- 10 meter contour information may be made available for the entire country.

India has a very long tradition of systematically collecting spatial data through various organizations at national and state levels, creating a broad and powerful installed base. However, the institutional aspects of the same installed base create lock-in effects. These institutions have historically acted in a compartmentalized manner with limited sharing of data or applications not only for citizens and the private sector, but also for other government agencies. This reflects a poor appreciation of information dissemination by these organizations. The current NMP neither has spirit nor regulations to break these lock-in effects.

The NMP along with legislation on right to information in India is a paradigm shift towards openness and access to information. However, these are not going to pay much dividend in terms of sharing of spatial information amongst all the major stakeholders unless there is change in the very culture of sharing with each stakeholder. A more comprehensive
‘National Spatial Policy (NSP)’ covering all important sources of spatial information along with a vibrant NSDI is need of the hour. The NSP must provide ways ahead to NSDI.