Posts

Building a National Data Sharing Infrastructure

In March, 2014, URISA published the first in what is intended to be a series of occasional GIS Management Institute® discussion papers. “A Distributed Model for Effective National Geospatial Data Management: Building a National Data Sharing Infrastructure,” by Jim Sparks (State of Indiana GIO), Philip Worrall (Indiana Geographic Information Council Executive Director), and Kevin Mickey (Indiana University Polis Center Geospatial Education Director).

While Indiana’s history with building a spatial data infrastructure has been short relative to several other’s, its track record is impressive. In the late 1990’s the Federal Geographic Data Committee awarded a small grant to a small group of likeminded GIS professionals in Indiana in hopes of starting something – anything really – to boost GIS coordination in the state. The 2000’s brought sweeping change, including developing a not-for-profit council, voluntary standards, GIS data sharing and metadata initiatives, statewide data collection programs, multi-level governmental support, and instituting the IndianaMap. In 2009, the IndianaMap partners quietly released the first view of a multi-county parcel database. Today the IndianaMap hosts and freely delivers the nearly complete framework – map data sourced from local agencies – along with dozens of other statewide and regional data sets (more than 230 layers of GIS data, Indiana Geological Survey). These data are served for viewing and free download to the public and rolled-up all the way to the federal level into The National Map.

This important paper examines a number of impediments to effective data development and data sharing and offer solutions that reflect the employment of effective coordination, carefully directed funding, and the application of current information technology tools and strategies. It summarizes the best practices that the authors believe should be applied nationwide to maintain local control of processes while achieving the broad goals of the National Map. The authors provide a summary of how Indiana has met one of its biggest challenges over the years – how to create a viable, sustainable technical data collection, storage, and distribution infrastructure and the human resources to manage and maintain it.

While the NSDI concept has spanned decades, the realization of a nationwide local-to-statewide-to-national NSDI has been elusive. This paper presents case studies from across the nation. It evaluates what practices have proven to work, and also those that have proven not to work. With it, we may yet get closer to realizing an NSDI.

Read the full paper here.

A Call for an Open Spatial Data Infrastructure

In full disclosure, this is a soap-box issue of mine. I’ve long been a vocal advocate of open public data in the geospatial arena.

The “open” provides us all the opportunity to build common spatial data infrastructures so critical to addressing public, private, and broader societal needs. Here I express concern that even with the most open of data, we may yet be compounding vital problems regarding a critical goal of spatial data infrastructures: authoritative and consistent data. Consistency is key, in my humble opinion.

One needs only to look so far as pleas such as in Jonathan Feldman’s recent article “How To Fix The GIS Data Mess” to see how consistent data shared among all potential users is much needed and desired. In my own experience, beyond accuracy and unfettered access to geospatial data, consistency of those data among users is critical. When agencies and organizations rely on geospatial data for critical decision making and those data differ, the decisions based on those data will necessarily differ, notwithstanding the best intentions.

Is it emergency responders and non-profit agencies looking at different authoritative data sources to deploy rescue efforts to your pets and family members? Is it the construction crew, development company, city, and recreational group looking to difference data sources when trails are cleared for that latest building project? Data consistency is vital – for public safety and for the public interest. Consistency (and with it I’m implying shared maintenance) is key to helping control costs.

I am a big fan of efforts such as Open Street Map (OSM) in democratizing geospatial data. This is an effort to be applauded. Clearly the sweeping early success of such effort, particularly in those areas of the world where geospatial data are less public than the US, demonstrates that people are ready and eager to create and support open data sources; I am myself. But I lend a word of caution as well… What do we do when other authoritative data that are open already exist? How do we determine authoritative? How do we share maintenance? These questions remain largely unanswered.

Members of the National States’ Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) are working with public and private organizations at all levels to address these very questions.

In Indiana for example, the community is working together to overcome institutional obstacles and build a statewide spatial data infrastructure that is open and consistent (see the Indiana Geographic Information Council). Local agencies are providing data publicly, such as street centerlines and parcel boundaries, and the state is integrating and publishing rather than duplicating those efforts. The state is contributing as well, not only through coordination and infrastructure, but also with statewide data sets such as aerial photography that make sense to maintain at a broader scale. And the effort doesn’t stop there. With university participation, those data are made public (view and download) through the IndianaMap. They are provided to federal agencies, such as U.S. Census for map modernization. In recognition that not everyone comes to government sources for their decision-making, statewide aerial photography (2005) was shipped to Google and Microsoft to integrate into their map services.

Such a model holds out a glimmer of hope that statewide, national, and international spatial data infrastructures are not only possible, but also within reach. However, even with such open data, when the process is ill-defined and under-funded we may miss the target. How, for instance, will the IndianaMap data be incorporated into other open source efforts the likes of OSM? With a desire by all parties, how might maintenance be addressed? These questions remain unanswered.

We must continue to strive for solutions which focus on process. Consistent data are key in the potential for geospatial data to solve problems at the most local to the most global of scales. While I agree any data may be viewed as better than no data at all, a preponderance of inconsistent data may prove no better with regard to vital issues. There are inherent problems when local data (cities and counties) differ from state data, differ from federal, private, non-profit, and open data. This is where a National Spatial Data Infrastructure is necessary.

The Economic Benefits of the IndianaMap

From transportation to public safety to economic development, the IndianaMap supports hundreds of local, regional and statewide projects each year. The IndianaMap was used for response and recovery during this year’s major flooding, tornado, and earthquake events, Honda’s selection of Indiana for its new facility, and much more.

$1.7 Billion Supported by the IndianaMap

Stories documenting how the IndianaMap is used are presented throughout this report, IndianaMap Return on Investment. Phase one of the IndianaMap is complete and the results are in—the initial investment of $8.5 million in the IndianaMap supports over 200-times its value in projects and operations—with 90% of users indicating they could not do their projects without it. As is evident from this study, the IndianaMap proves a good investment by saving taxpayer dollars and providing an information infrastructure that benefits all Hoosiers.

86% indicated that IndianaMap orthophotography was essential to their operations.

Still there are many challenges to completing and maintaining the IndianaMap. Conflicting interpretations of the meaning of “electronic map” as set forth in Indiana Code 5-14-3-2(d) and confusion surrounding the validity of copyrighting factual data result in inconsistent access to electronic map data. Non-standard maps present technical obstacles to data integration. The importance of multi-jurisdictional data providers (local, region, state and federal) is not well recognized. But perhaps most significantly, Indiana’s Legislature has not allocated funding specifically for support and maintenance of the IndianaMap. To help address these issues and justify future financing of the IndianaMap, IGIC answers the question “What are the economic and use-benefits of the IndianaMap?” ‘Economic value’ is taken to mean the contribution that the IndianaMap makes to Indiana’s economy as a provider of geographic information.

untitled-image-3Like roads and bridges, the IndianaMap is part of a public infrastructure that is a longterm investment in Indiana’s future. There are hundreds, potentially thousands of IndianaMap users. Truly a public good, anyone can access it, anonymously, through a web viewer (e.g., www.indianamap.org and www.maps.google.com), through data download websites, off-line at public libraries, and other public access points. Because the users are widespread, it is difficult to estimate the total user base. All Hoosiers benefit through the money it saves taxpayers, as well as improved quality of life through better-managed resources, transportation, and business. For this study, input was sought from a known user base (those who are registered with the IndianaMap download sites and email distribution lists) through an appropriately designed questionnaire with the following objectives:

  • Discover what types of projects are utilizing the IndianaMap.
  • Identify the priority placed on the different types of IndianaMap framework data by the users.
  • Assess the importance of the IndianaMap in projects and operations by the users.
  • Determine how the IndianaMap contributes to the quality and cost of the user’s work.
  • Estimate the dollar value of the IndianaMap to end users.

The results of the survey clearly indicate that over $1.7 billion in Indiana projects and government operations are supported by the IndianaMap. Meeting these objectives will help plan for future mapping projects and assess the IndianaMap in qualitative as well as monetary terms.

METHODOLOGY

The questionnaire had nine questions implemented through an online survey tool. The response rate to the survey was encouraging and exceeded commonly accepted response rates in marketing surveys. For the purposes of this study we make an estimation of total users based on a sample of 1521 registered users on the University Information Technology Services at Indiana University’s download site for the IndianaMap Orthophotography. These users download and use IndianaMap data on their own systems. They include government regulators, engineers, utilities, realtors, appraisers, mining companies, researchers, planning officials, and teachers. Three hundred fourteen (314) responses were received from May to July of 2008. This is a 20% response rate (approximately +/- 6% margin of error3) and is nearly four times the rate [slider title=”considered acceptable”]Van Bennekom, F. (2003) www.greatbrook.com[/slider] in the marketing industry.

Because the IndianaMap has many different users, as well as emerging and unknown new uses and repeated uses over time, placing a quantitative valuation on it is an extremely complex problem. Our approach is similar to that taken by mineral economists’ [slider title=”Bhagwat and Ipe”]Bhagwat, S.B., and Ipe, V.C. 2000. The economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to Kentucky. Illinois State Geological Survey Special Report 3, 39 p.[/slider] in their pioneering report “Economic Benefits of Detailed Geologic Mapping to Kentucky.” Their approach is a retrospective study to first estimate the value to an individual map user and then to extend that value to all the possible map users over time to get an estimate of the aggregate
benefits of a mapping program. This approach is applicable to the IndianaMap as we can conduct a retrospective study based on currently available maps and the 2005 Statewide Orthophotography Project. Slightly modifying Bhagwat and Ipe’s method to our purpose, we developed a study of the economic benefits of the IndianaMap to demonstrate the value of statewide map data, period of return, and a positive business case for funding the
ongoing creation and maintenance of statewide framework data.

First, input was sought on the total costs of projects and/or operations that are supported by the IndianaMap. Of 314 responses, 69% (216 responses) provided information on the total cost of their projects and/or operations. Of those responses, some indicated a range in the cost of projects and operations. To maintain a conservative perspective, we consistently used the lesser values in cases where a range in costs The IndianaMap was indicated. Many of those not responding indicated that total costs were difficult for them to estimate. The respondents identify $1,751,000,145 in Indiana projects and government operations that are supported by the IndianaMap. In addition, of those providing project cost information, 90% indicated that IndianaMap orthophotography was essential to their operations (defined as “project requires high resolution/accuracy data, maybe supplemented with other data; couldn’t do project without it”) and 6% indicated orthophotography was of secondary necessity (defined as “project requires other data that depend on high resolution/ accuracy imagery to create, align, verify, and/or maintain those data”). These projects range from statewide to discrete area projects.

CONCLUSION

The results of the survey clearly indicate that over $1.7 billion in Indiana projects and government operations are supported by the IndianaMap. In short, this means that an initial investment of $8.5 million in the IndianaMap supports over 200-times its value in projects and operations—with 90% of users indicating they could not do their projects without it.

The IndianaMap is by definition a public good— those goods that, once they have been produced, are available to all, without exclusion. While the IndianaMap has many of the characteristics of a resource, a commodity, a capital asset andinfrastructure, it does not fit neatly into any of these categories. The difficulty in assigning a particular role to the IndianaMap reflects, to a large extent, the diffuse, and hence extensive, impact that it has on the economy. The gains from the IndianaMap can be categorized into three types:

  • Increases in efficiency, so that the same task can be performed with fewer, often significantly fewer, resources.
  • Increases in effectiveness, so that the same task can be performed with greater accuracy and fewer mistakes.
  • New products and services, which could not have been produced without this new
    technology.

These tangible, measurable, economic impacts only partially reflect the contribution of the IndianaMap. Consideration must also be given to the social gains resulting from the use of the IndianaMap products. Such an analysis is, by its very nature, largely of a qualitative nature, but it is important to ensure that the monetary estimate deduced in this study does not detract the reader from the wider importance of the IndianaMap.

The Economic Benefits of the IndianaMap return on investment study was conducted by Saligoe-Simmel, LLC and the Indiana Geographic Information Council (IGIC). The study was supported by a grant from the Federal Geographic Data Committee Cooperative Agreements Program Grant Agreement Number: 07HQAG0042.

Humble Beginnings for Local Data: Parcel Data in the IndianaMap

National and statewide GIS coordinating bodies have sought for some time to build statewide and nation-wide cadastre, or parcel, frameworks. The Mapping Science Committee – National Research Council cite the many benefits of having a national parcel database in its report, “National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future.” In Indiana, a statewide parcel database may be used for such things as quickly identifying affected property during large natural disasters, such as flooding and tornados. A national (as well as statewide) fabric of land data has been elusive as it inherently relies on the most local of sources of those data – counties, parishes, cities, and towns. Reasons technical, political, financial, and institutional can all be cited as reasons why we don’t already have a national cadastre. While there is still a long row to hoe, Indiana appears to be slowly overcoming those hurdles with the IndianaMap.

Land Parcels in the IndianaMap

Land Parcels in the IndianaMap

With quiet announcement this week, the IndianaMap partners released the first view of a multi-county parcel database. The counties and the State have entered into IndianaMap partnership agreements, in which the counties provide parcels (limited attributes), address points, street centerlines, and administrative boundaries delivered through web map feature services (WFS), and the state provides a bit of seed funds to help establish the WFS, aggregate the data statewide, and channel it out through the IndianaMap to agencies, the original providers, and the public. It is important to note the state also provides a couple hundred statewide data layers available to local governments through the IndianaMap. This week’s view is the very first in what promises to still be a lengthy process, and I’m told it is provided “warts and all.” No matter how humble, it demonstrates a complete flow-through of the data in this process and proves the concept that a statewide (and I’d extend, national) public land parcel fabric is indeed accomplishable. This view shows parcels extending across Kosciusko and Wabash counties. In all, more than 70 (of 92) Indiana counties have agreed to participate.

Indiana GIO Announcement

Press Release For Immediate Release October 29, 2007 Press Contact: Mehgan O’Connor moconnor@iot.IN.gov 317.234.4589 317.979.0877

Governor Appoints State’s First Geographic Information Officer INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. – Chief Information Officer Gerry Weaver today announced Governor Mitch Daniels’ appointment of Jim Sparks as the state’s first Geographic Information Officer. Sparks, whose first day with the state is today, will oversee the coordination of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) efforts across all state agencies and work with the Indiana Geographic Information Council, Inc. (IGIC) to adopt and implement the state’s GIS data policies, standards and statewide data integration plan. GIS technology works by linking information stored in databases to a place or location on a map. Users query the data, which is presented in maps, tables and other graphic representations. Since 80% of all government information has a geographic component, the power of GIS can be widely used to support decision-making and problem-solving across all sectors – public, private and not-for-profit. Sparks, an experienced geography and mapping professional, has extensive knowledge of geographic information systems (GIS) technology and experience in administration, policy development and planning. “Having a dedicated GIS expert in Indiana government pushes our capabilities to the next level,” said Weaver. “Working with the state’s current GIS talent, Sparks will create a consistent framework of statewide public maps and data for all levels of government that will help save lives and money and improve government efficiency.” To continue the coordination of enterprise information technology solutions that save the state, and ultimately taxpayers’, time and money, Sparks will report directly to Weaver, who oversees state IT.
###
About the Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) – The Indiana Office of Technology is an internal service agency that was created by Governor Mitch Daniels on January 10, 2005. Its mission is to provide cost-effective, secure, consistent, reliable enterprise technology services to its partner agencies so they can better serve Hoosier taxpayers. For more information about IOT, please visit http://iot.IN.gov .

Guidance From Above: IndianaMap Across Indiana

Over the past several months, I worked with producer Aric Hartvig of WFYI to document some of the uses and benefits of the IndianaMap for their series Across Indiana. In 2005, Indiana developed very high resolution orthophotography (aerial photography) as part of a single, consistent digital base map for geographic information systems — called the IndianaMap. The photography has made quite an impact –saving money, time, and lives by making an accurate base map available to everyone. This segment from WFYI documents some of those benefits.

Featured in the video are several Indiana Geographic Information Council members, including: Anna Radue – Indiana University UITS; Jim Binkley, Scottsburg Municipal Electric Utility; Nathan Eaton, Indiana Geological Survey; Brooke Gajownik, Hamilton County Sheriffs Office; Jill Saligoe-Simmel, Indiana Geographic Information Council.

Thanks WFYI!

Indiana’s GIS Law

Years in the making, Indiana passes first comprehensive GIS law. It defines data exchange agreements, identifies framework data as essential elements of a statewide base map, emphasizes open access, establishes the first Geographic Information Officer as an appointee of the governor, establishes (but does not fund) a GIS fund, and recognizes the role of state universities and the not-for-profit Indiana Geographic Information Council.

Sponsored by Sen David Ford and Rep. Scott Reske.

SECTION 2. IC 4-23-7.3 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007]:

 Chapter 7.3. Indiana GIS Mapping Standards

Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “data exchange agreement” means an agreement concerning the exchange of any GIS data or framework data.

Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, “electronic map” has the meaning set forth in IC 5-14-3-2(d).

Sec. 3. (a) As used in this chapter, “framework data” means common electronic map information for a geographic area.
(b) The term includes the following:

(1) Digital orthophotography.
(2) Digital cadastre.
(3) Public land survey system.
(4) Elevation.
(5) Geodetic control.
(6) Governmental boundary units.
(7) Water features.
(8) Addresses.
(9) Streets.

Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, “fund” refers to the Indiana mapping data and standards fund established by section 19 of this chapter.

Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, “GIS” refers to geographic information systems.

Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, “IGIC” refers to the nonprofit entity known as the Indiana Geographic Information Council, or its successor organization.

Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, “political subdivision” has the meaning set forth in IC 36-1-2-13.

Sec. 8. As used in this chapter, “state agency” has the meaning set forth in IC 4-13-1-1.

Sec. 9. As used in this chapter, “state data center” refers to the state data center established under IC 4-23-7.1.

Sec. 10. As used in this chapter, “state GIS officer” refers to the individual appointed under section 13 of this chapter.

Sec. 11. As used in this chapter, “statewide base map” means an electronic map of Indiana consisting of framework data for Indiana.

Sec. 12. As used in this chapter, “statewide data integration plan” means a plan:

(1) to integrate GIS data and framework data developed and maintained by different units of the federal, state, and local government into statewide coverage of framework data; and
(2) that includes details for:

(A) an inventory of existing data;
(B) stakeholder data requirements;
(C) identification of data stewards;
(D) data standards and schema, costs, work flow, data transfer mechanisms, update frequency, and maintenance; and
(E) identification of appropriate data sharing policies and mechanisms to facilitate intergovernmental data exchange, such as data exchange agreements.

Sec. 13. (a) The governor shall appoint an individual as the state GIS officer.
(b) The individual appointed by the governor must be an experienced geography and mapping professional who has:

(1) extensive knowledge of the principles, practices, terminology, and trends in GIS, spatial data, analysis, and related technology; and
(2) experience in administration, project management, policy development, coordination of services, and planning.

Sec. 14. The state GIS officer shall do the following:

(1) Function as the chief officer for GIS matters for state agencies.
(2) Review and either veto or adopt both the:

(A) state’s GIS data standards; and
(B) statewide data integration plan; as recommended by the IGIC. If either of the recommendations is vetoed, the state GIS officer shall return the recommendation to the IGIC with a message announcing the veto and stating the reasons for the veto. If the IGIC ceases to exist or refuses to make the recommendations listed in this subsection, the state GIS officer may develop and adopt state GIS data standards and a statewide data integration plan. The standards and the plan adopted under this subsection must promote interoperability and open use of data with various GIS software, applications, computer hardware, and computer operating systems.

(3) Act as the administrator of:

(A) the state standards and policies concerning GIS data and framework data; and
(B) the statewide data integration plan.

(4) Enforce the state GIS data standards and execute the statewide data integration plan adopted under subdivision (2) through the use of:

(A) GIS policies developed for state agencies; and
(B) data exchange agreements involving an entity other than a state agency.

(5) Coordinate the state data center’s duties under this chapter.
(6) Act as the state’s representative for:

(A) requesting grants available for the acquisition or enhancement of GIS resources; and
(B) preparing funding proposals for grants to enhance coordination and implementation of GIS.

(7) Review and approve, in accordance with the statewide data integration plan, the procurement of GIS goods and services involving the state data center or a state agency.
(8) Cooperate with the United States Board on Geographic Names established by P.L.80-242 by serving as the chair of a committee formed with the IGIC as the state names authority for Indiana.
(9) Publish a biennial report. The report must include the status and metrics on the progress of the statewide data integration plan.
(10) Represent the state’s interest to federal agencies regarding the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
(11) Serve as the state’s primary point of contact for communications and discussions with federal agencies regarding framework data, spatial data exchanges, cost leveraging opportunities, spatial data standards, and other GIS related issues.
(12) Facilitate GIS data cooperation between units of the federal, state, and local governments.
(13) Promote the development and maintenance of statewide GIS data and framework data layers associated with a statewide base map.
(14) Approve and maintain data exchange agreements to which the state data center or a state agency is a party to increase the amount and quality of GIS data and framework data available to the state.
(15) Use personnel made available from state educational institutions to provide technical support to the:

(A) state GIS officer in carrying out the officer’s duties under this chapter; and
(B) IGIC.

Sec. 15. The publication and access requirements of this chapter do not apply to data that would otherwise be exempt from public disclosure under IC 5-14-3-4(b)(19).

Sec. 16. With money from the fund, the state GIS officer, through the data center, the IGIC, and the other organizations, shall do the following:

(1) Ensure that there are adequate depositories of all GIS data and framework data obtained by a state agency.
(2) Acquire, publish, store, and distribute GIS data and framework data through the computer gateway administered under IC 4-13.1-2-2(a)(5) by the office of technology and through the state data center. The state GIS officer may also provide access through the IGIC and other entities as directed by the state GIS officer.
(3) Integrate GIS data and framework data developed and maintained by state agencies and political subdivisions into the statewide base map.
(4) Maintain a state historical archive of GIS data, framework data, and electronic maps.
(5) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, provide public access to GIS data and framework data in locations throughout Indiana.
(6) Provide assistance to state agencies and political subdivisions regarding public access to GIS data and framework data so that information is available to the public while confidentiality is protected for certain data from electronic maps.
(7) Develop and maintain statewide framework data layers associated with a statewide base map or electronic map.
(8) Publish and distribute the state GIS data standards and the statewide data integration plan adopted under section 14(2) of this chapter.
(9) Subject to section 20 of this chapter, make GIS data, framework data, and electronic maps available for use by the Indiana Business Research Center.

 

Sec. 17. The state GIS officer shall coordinate with state educational institutions to do the following:

(1) Promote formal GIS education opportunities for full-time and part-time students.
(2) Provide informal GIS learning opportunities through a series of seminars and noncredit concentrated classes provided throughout Indiana.
(3) Coordinate research assets for the benefit of Indiana by maintaining inventories of the universities’ academic and technical GIS experts, data and technology resources as provided by the universities, and research interests for collaboration to pursue research grant opportunities.
(4) Implement an outreach network to Indiana political subdivisions to enhance communication and data sharing among state government, political subdivisions, and the business community.

Sec. 18. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a state educational institution may not bid on contracts to provide photogrametry services or framework layer data conversion services for the benefit of a state agency or political subdivision. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the purchase of any of the following by a state agency or political subdivision from a state educational institution:

(1) GIS data or framework data.
(2) Data previously created by the state educational institution as part of the educational, research, or service mission of the state educational institution.

(b) If there is a lack of qualified bids on contracts referred to in subsection (a) by entities other than state educational institutions, the state agency or political subdivision may, with the advice of the state GIS officer, solicit bids from state educational institutions.

Sec. 19. (a) The Indiana mapping data and standards fund is established for the following purposes:

(1) Funding GIS grants.
(2) Administering this chapter.

(b) The fund consists of the following:

(1) Appropriations made to the fund by the general assembly.
(2) Gifts, grants, or other money received by the state for GIS purposes.

(c) The state GIS officer shall administer the fund.     (d) The expenses of administering the fund shall be paid from money in the fund.     (e) The treasurer of state shall invest the money in the fund not currently needed to meet the obligations of the fund in the same manner as other public money may be invested. Interest that accrues from these investments shall be deposited in the fund.     (f) Money in the fund at the end of a state fiscal year does not revert to the state general fund.

Sec. 20. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d), a political subdivision maintains the right to control the sale, exchange, and distribution of any GIS data or framework data provided by the political subdivision to the state through a data exchange agreement entered into under this chapter.
(b) A political subdivision may agree, through a provision in a data exchange agreement, to allow the sale, exchange, or distribution of GIS data or framework data provided to the state.
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to data that is otherwise required by state or federal law to be provided by a political subdivision to the state or federal government.
(d) As a condition in a data exchange agreement for providing state GIS data or framework data to a political subdivision, the state GIS officer may require the political subdivision to follow the state GIS data standards and the statewide data integration plan when the political subdivision makes use of the GIS data or framework data as provided by the state.

Sec. 21. (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit the IGIC, the state GIS officer, or the state data center to recommend or restrict standards for GIS hardware or software that a proprietary vendor provides to any political subdivision.
(b) It is the intent of the general assembly in enacting this chapter to promote high technology enterprise and employment within Indiana. To the extent practicable, the “Buy Indiana Presumption” required by Executive Order 05-05, shall be observed with respect to all procurement decisions related to this chapter, so long as Executive Order 05-05 is in effect.

Sec. 22. The publication and access requirements of this chapter do not supersede IC 5-14-3.