In 2010, we published an article asking “why open data”.
Back then, open data was still a relatively new idea. A small number of cities had started publishing transport feeds, spending data and service information online. There was a growing belief that making data accessible could strengthen democracy, improve public services and help people participate more meaningfully in civic life.
Fifteen years later, data has become embedded in almost every part of society.
It shapes how resources are allocated, how services are delivered and increasingly how decisions are made. Data no longer simply describes the city around us. It influences how the city functions.
Yet many of the questions raised during those early conversations about openness and transparency still remain unresolved.
Who has access to information?
Who has the ability to interpret it?
Who benefits from the systems built around it?
And who gets left out?
The inequalities that existed in 2010 have not disappeared. In many cases they have become more complex.
Today, it is not only governments that hold power through data. Large technology companies, platforms and infrastructure providers now collect and control vast amounts of information about how people move, communicate, work and live. Many of the systems shaping everyday life operate in ways that are difficult to inspect or challenge.
For most people, data becomes visible only through its effects.
A bus route changes.
A benefit decision is delayed.
Traffic systems prioritise one area over another.
Insurance costs fluctuate.
A housing application is rejected.
An AI system filters information before a person ever sees it.
These are all manifestations of decisions made through data.
When people cannot see how decisions are made, trust begins to erode. Even where intentions are good, opacity creates distance between institutions and the people they serve. In the absence of clear evidence, rumour and suspicion fill the gaps.
The original promise of open data was that transparency could help address this imbalance.
That idea still matters, but transparency in 2026 means more than publishing datasets online.
Information also needs to be understandable, accessible and usable. It needs context. It needs explanation. It needs to support meaningful participation rather than simply meeting technical requirements for openness.
Otherwise, open data risks becoming performative. Available in theory, inaccessible in practice.
Over the last decade we have also seen how information environments have changed. Traditional media is no longer the sole intermediary between institutions and the public. Social platforms, recommendation systems and generative AI increasingly shape how information is discovered, interpreted and shared.
This creates new challenges for public trust.
Open data alone cannot solve misinformation, inequality or institutional distrust. But trustworthy, accessible public information remains an essential part of responding to them. Shared evidence still matters.
It allows claims to be questioned.
It helps people understand how decisions are made.
It creates opportunities for accountability and participation.
It is also worth recognising how much of our digital and civic infrastructure now depends on open data. Journey planners, accessibility tools, environmental monitoring, research, journalism, community action and countless other services rely on data that has been made openly available over the last fifteen years. In many cases, open data has become so embedded that we no longer notice it. We only notice when it disappears.
Importantly, openness is not only about scrutiny.
It is also about enabling collaboration, reducing duplication and creating the conditions for communities, organisations and public bodies to work together more effectively. Some of the most valuable uses of open data over the last fifteen years have come not from large institutions, but from small groups, local communities and practitioners responding directly to the needs around them.
Yet there is a risk that some of these gains are being taken for granted. Faced with financial pressures, efficiency targets and the need to generate revenue, some organisations are beginning to look at data primarily through the lens of organisational benefit rather than wider public value. Datasets that were once considered public infrastructure are increasingly viewed as assets to be controlled, monetised or restricted.
This raises important questions about who ultimately benefits from data created through public investment. When data is collected, maintained and improved using public resources, there is a strong case that its value should continue to flow back into the wider system. Restricting access, introducing charges for reuse or limiting availability can create new barriers to innovation, participation and accountability.
At the same time, experience has shown that openness on its own is not enough.
Questions around consent, privacy, bias and power have become increasingly important. There are legitimate concerns about how data is collected, shared and reused, particularly when people have little visibility or control over those processes. Public trust depends not only on transparency, but on stewardship and accountability.
This means thinking carefully about governance, participation and who gets to shape the systems that affect their lives.
It also means recognising that data literacy matters as much as data access. People need the time, skills and support to engage with information meaningfully. Without that, existing inequalities can simply be reproduced in digital form.
The conversation around open data has matured.
The focus is no longer only on opening datasets. Increasingly, it is about creating fairer and more participatory ways of managing information, technology and public infrastructure. It is about ensuring that digital systems work in the public interest.
As artificial intelligence becomes more embedded in public and civic life, these questions become more urgent.
How do people challenge automated decisions?
How do communities understand systems that affect them?
Who is able to participate in shaping those systems?
And how do we build institutions that deserve public trust?
Open data is not a complete answer to these questions. However, openness, transparency and participation remain essential foundations for any democratic society.
In 2010, much of the conversation was about opening data for the first time. In 2026, part of the challenge is ensuring that the data already made available remains open, accessible and useful. The progress of the last fifteen years should not be assumed to be permanent.
We need to continue demonstrating the value that open data creates, not only for individual organisations but for society as a whole. We need to challenge attempts to place new barriers around publicly funded information, make the case for better quality and more accessible data, and continue advocating for openness as a public good.
The challenge now is not simply opening data. It is building the relationships, practices and institutions that allow people to use it meaningfully, fairly and collectively.
*Photo by Jon Tyson