In article , Dave
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 09:41:52 -0500, DSK said:

Right, but Peter's point is still valid_ that it may cost
more to bill for the data & collect payment than they are
receiving, and the data itself is already paid for ...and
there is enough "common good" benefit that it's not really
bilking the taxpayers even if they don't have the foggiest
idea why they need it.

Agreed certainly in the case of Internet distribution like what NOAA is
doing now. My real point was that questions like this ought not to be
decided based on moralistic screaming about the fact that the taxpayers have
already paid for the initial cost.

Charts are expensive, but I don't believe for a minute that
yachtsmen have paid the entire cost of the surveying, much
less everything else. And I don't believe we should, either;
for the same reasons that I don't believe residents of the
area devastated by Hurricane Katrina should bear the whole
cost of rebuilding.

While I don't necessarily agree with your rationale, I do accept the
conclusion. There are perfectly good reasons for the public's paying for the
collection of data and preparation of the charts. Among other things, the
Navy and CG need decent charts; and there don't seem to be any entrepreneurs
with open check books seeking to form a private marine charting operation.

And I venture to state that there never will be, even with swathe
mapping and differential GPS. If I can justify it, I'm gonna fit a
swathe mapper next time we do a big refit.

PDW