Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData
Got it, thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding. Ale On 23/07/19 16:58, Simon Poole wrote: There is no conflict. The specific OS version of the OGL was/is incompatible, data released on generic OGL terms including such by OS is (compatible). Am 23.07.2019 um 16:37 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2019-07-23 16:05, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: Just be careful that it seems that the OS OpenData license is not compatible with OSM, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Open_Government_Licence_.28OGL.29_based_licences What about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata which says the OGL licence is compatible? What to you know that others don't? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData
There is no conflict. The specific OS version of the OGL was/is incompatible, data released on generic OGL terms including such by OS is (compatible). Am 23.07.2019 um 16:37 schrieb Colin Smale: > > > On 2019-07-23 16:05, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: > >> Just be careful that it seems that the OS OpenData license is not >> compatible with OSM, see >> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Open_Government_Licence_.28OGL.29_based_licences >> > What > about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata which > says the OGL licence is compatible? What to you know that others don't? > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData
On 2019-07-23 16:05, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: > Just be careful that it seems that the OS OpenData license is not compatible > with OSM, see > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Open_Government_Licence_.28OGL.29_based_licences What about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata which says the OGL licence is compatible? What to you know that others don't?___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData
On 23/07/2019 15:05, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: Just be careful that it seems that the OS OpenData license is not compatible with OSM, see It does not say that. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData
Just be careful that it seems that the OS OpenData license is not compatible with OSM, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility#Open_Government_Licence_.28OGL.29_based_licences Ale On 23/07/19 14:39, Sérgio V. wrote: Just to share news, Ordnance Survey OpenData - OS Open Names etc https://twitter.com/OrdnanceSurvey/status/1153593110129270784?s=20 https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/opendata.html Regards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenData
Just to share news, Ordnance Survey OpenData - OS Open Names etc https://twitter.com/OrdnanceSurvey/status/1153593110129270784?s=20 https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/opendata.html Regards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sérgio - http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/smaprs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey
You will find links and info from this morning on the talk-gb list Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Lester Caine >Sent: 01 April 2010 11:06 AM >To: OSM Talk >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey > >> Data available tomorrow (Thursday) at >> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata . > >Looks like the demand is too great ;) >Anybody actually managed to register yet? > >-- >Lester Caine - G8HFL >- >Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact >L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk >EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ >Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// >Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2782 - Release Date: 03/31/10 >19:32:00 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey
> Data available tomorrow (Thursday) at > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata . Looks like the demand is too great ;) Anybody actually managed to register yet? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey
For those who don't live on Twitter:
The UK Government has just announced its decision on freeing Ordnance
Survey data. Full document is at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/pdf/1528263.pdf
Quick summary of what'll be released:
- medium-resolution vector data (Meridian2), includes street geometries
and names though the curves are a bit angular: see
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/meridian2/
- another new vector dataset called OS VectorMap District, scope as yet
unknown
- StreetView raster data (includes street names, building outlines)
- postcodes, though with points ("unit centres") not areas (Code-Point Open)
- administrative boundaries (Boundary-Line)
- gazetteer (OS Locator)
- terrain data (Land-Form PANORAMA)
- a couple of negligible very small-scale maps
Contrary to original proposal, Landranger and Explorer rasters
(1:25k/1:50k) will not be included.
Data available tomorrow (Thursday) at
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata .
Licence will be "without restrictions on use and re-use". Original
proposal was CC-BY. The response notes that several respondees (many of
whom read this list, I suspect) suggested either pure PD or the ODC
licences because of the database rights issue, but doesn't actually say
what the licence will be.
I'm sure there are a few other things we'd have liked to have seen
(aerial imagery, for example) but on balance this is a great result IMO
- and one that wouldn't have happened without OSM.
Suggest follow-ups to talk-gb.
cheers
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
2008/11/21 Stephen Gower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:58:43PM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) > wrote: >> >> The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your >> local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and >> reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping. Not easy to be >> definitive. > > The Definitive Map (DM) exists on OS mapping, but the other legal document > The Definitive Statement (DS) is purely textual descriptions of each path. > Those for Hampshire are on-line at > http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/locating-row/definitive-statement.htm and look > very similar to the Oxfordshire ones I've seen at the library. > > I think it would be possible to take *just* the DS and an on-the-ground > survey and have something close-to definitive in itself. This of course > raises futher questions :- > > The DS and DM are closely related, is the DS contaminated by the OS licence, > even though it is not a map? > By using the DS and a survey, would we just be recreating the DM and > somehow infringing the OS copyright? > The "Public Footpath" signs will have been placed based on infomation in the > DM - do we risk infringing OS copyright by using these to map RoW? > > s > I wasn't aware that Definitive Statements were a legal requirement, although I was aware that descriptions of boundaries are often described (although often in an indistinct way) in legal documents, particularly ones enforcing boundary changes. (For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greater_London_boundary_changes) I wonder if there's a more complete DS for boundaries? -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 01:58:43PM -, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > > The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your > local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and > reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping. Not easy to be > definitive. The Definitive Map (DM) exists on OS mapping, but the other legal document The Definitive Statement (DS) is purely textual descriptions of each path. Those for Hampshire are on-line at http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/locating-row/definitive-statement.htm and look very similar to the Oxfordshire ones I've seen at the library. I think it would be possible to take *just* the DS and an on-the-ground survey and have something close-to definitive in itself. This of course raises futher questions :- The DS and DM are closely related, is the DS contaminated by the OS licence, even though it is not a map? By using the DS and a survey, would we just be recreating the DM and somehow infringing the OS copyright? The "Public Footpath" signs will have been placed based on infomation in the DM - do we risk infringing OS copyright by using these to map RoW? s ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
>I was also worried about the Council's own database copyright in its >information. For a one off it probably wouldn't matter, but if we then >started doing stuff from Council info, we might be contaminating things. >I've generally tried to use only the evidence on the ground and approved >sources like Yahoo. I think the council data is public domain, as I distinctly recall on the West Sussex or Hampshire online ROW maps that it was "public domain information overlayed on copyrighted OS maps" or some statement to that effect. And if it isn't public domain, it really ought to be, as surely it's in both public and landowner interest to disseminate as widely as possible where the rights of way actually go. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a > right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an > access= tag The world is calling the UK, it wants its foot tag back. Is there ever going to be a way to solve different meanings in different areas, or is it a problem that is just to be ignored? /Erik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Sent: 20 November 2008 5:23 PM >To: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its >strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK > >>The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your >>local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details >and >>reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping. Not easy to be >>definitive. > >I think this has come up before but: does this matter? > >Is it not true that whilst the underlying OS mapping is copyright, the >layer on top, the council's definitive map, is derived from a council >database - not an OS map - and thus is a separate layer unencumbered by >OS copyright? > >Again not 100% sure, but I'd presume that path *status* is OK taken from >the definitive map, as the council is the source of that information, not >the OS. I'd be inclined to agree with you in respect to the status and even perhaps any reference number. It's just the location that's probably derived from OS mapping, even if in text terms it might be described as following the boundary of a particular persons land the local authority in my experience store the information visually on OS mapping. Even legal documents which refer to land parcels will general have an OS map attached to depict. As David says, what is on the ground is the safe bet. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
On 20/11/2008 17:22, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Again not 100% sure, but I'd presume that path *status* is OK taken from > the definitive map, as the council is the source of that information, not > the OS. I was also worried about the Council's own database copyright in its information. For a one off it probably wouldn't matter, but if we then started doing stuff from Council info, we might be contaminating things. I've generally tried to use only the evidence on the ground and approved sources like Yahoo. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
>The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your >local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and >reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping. Not easy to be >definitive. I think this has come up before but: does this matter? Is it not true that whilst the underlying OS mapping is copyright, the layer on top, the council's definitive map, is derived from a council database - not an OS map - and thus is a separate layer unencumbered by OS copyright? Again not 100% sure, but I'd presume that path *status* is OK taken from the definitive map, as the council is the source of that information, not the OS. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
Nick Whitelegg >Sent: 20 November 2008 3:27 PM >To: Donald Allwright >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold >over "derived" geographic data in the UK > >>Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity >here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. >tags >doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a >public right of way or a permissive path. > >It does. The "yes" value for a tag means that it's a legal right of way >for that mode of transport (foot, horse, bicycle). The "permissive" value >means it isn't, it's just a permissive path. The problem is that it's not entirely clear. foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an access= tag I know this is somewhat different from general convention but the confusion is the reason that generally I have not added foot= or access= tags for footways. Cheers Andy > >Nick > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.7/1798 - Release Date: 18/11/2008 >8:59 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access > >foot = yes => legal right of way >foot = permissive => permissive path > >Unfortunately, Potlatch has been adding lots of * = yes for a while by >default, so it's hard to tell whether the contributor understands the >implications of the =yes tags and removes them if they don't apply. So >I'd have more confidence in the *=permissive tags more than *=yes. The wiki seems to be very confusing on this issue. I would have interpreted this page as meaning I should add foot=yes access=permissive, rather than foot=permissive. The various other pages that talk about types of path don't seem to mention anything about the access rights, only intended purpose - e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated This confusion isn't helped by potlatch doing one thing and josm another, and I'm pretty sure that past versions of potlatch did something different as well (not sure about JOSM). And JOSM makes no mention of foot=permissive, only foot=designated. And I believe that the accepted norm has changed in recent history too. So in answer to your question about whether the contributor understands the implications of the =yes tag, I think it's a totally safe bet that most people (myself included until a few minutes ago) don't. I would volunteer to update the wiki to make it much clearer how the various types of path should be tagged, but I still don't feel I understand it all sufficiently to do this. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags >doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right of way or a permissive path. It does. The "yes" value for a tag means that it's a legal right of way for that mode of transport (foot, horse, bicycle). The "permissive" value means it isn't, it's just a permissive path. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Donald Allwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. > The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags > doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right > of way or a permissive path. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access foot = yes => legal right of way foot = permissive => permissive path Unfortunately, Potlatch has been adding lots of * = yes for a while by default, so it's hard to tell whether the contributor understands the implications of the =yes tags and removes them if they don't apply. So I'd have more confidence in the *=permissive tags more than *=yes. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:58:43 -, Andy Robinson wrote: > Donald Allwright wrote: >>This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap >>to >>exist in the first place. I wonder if we should respond with some sort of >>marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public >>institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for >>their >>future mapping needs. > > Absolutely, especially for those places that are "complete". If we push this, we need to make it easy. Every council hasa GIS team geared up to use OS data, and switching to OSM isn't completely trivial even if you have the data ready. A guide for common tools / uses, and some nice innovative use cases would make it go a lot further than just us shouting "use OSM!" wherever we can. Thomas Wood and I have been working on something in the London Borough of Sutton that recently won a local award, I'm hoping to get a partnership with some architects working in Stoke to scale it up a bit. It's a bit broken at the moment - work in progress - but along the lines of some of the stuff in that article: http://map.oneplanetsutton.org Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
Hi, Gustav Foseid wrote: > To me it seems that OS is broadening it's business into the "seriously > overstating rights" trade... It seems to me that in this situation, the bad guys are not the OS but Google. Google has recently modified their terms of use, making clear that they automatically have rights to any data you display on top of Google: "11.1 Content License. (a) You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Your Content. By submitting, posting or displaying Your Content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Your Content." This means that if someone displays OS data on top of Google, he must also be entitled to grant the requested license to Google. All OS are doing is clarifying that a normal OS customer will probably *not* have the right to grant others (Google) a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free" license. This is true for OSM as well; my reading is that we must not display OSM data (say, a KML file we have generated from our data) on top of a Google map, because the above clause would then give Google rights to our data which are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. In conclusion, if someone says the OS is "reinforcing its stranglehold", then the CC-BY-SA license forces us to do the same... Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>I had some contact with the RoW officer at Cambridgeshire County Council >recently (he was pointing out that we had a footway down as a cycleway, though >it still is because I didn't think I could use his info based as it was on an >>OS base map!) Now that's an angle I'd not thought of before! So the question is, what sources of information about public rights of way are there that aren't derived from OS data? Or are the OS attempting to assert rights to this information itself, whereas in fact they only have rights to their own derivative of this information in the form of its representation on their maps? Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right of way or a permissive path. Some paths I have added are permissive paths under a DEFRA scheme (valid until 2014), and not actually rights of way. There isn't an obvious way of distinguishing this from a RoW in OSM. I had an altercation with the tenant farmer on one of these as I was walking where the map said the permissive path went, but he claimed the path was actually somewhere else (he said there was too much risk of foot and mouth disease with the public walking this close to the farmyard, which would be totally irrelevant if I had some sort of right to walk there in any case. I'm not clear what 'rights' I have exactly if it isn't a RoW; I also thought it a slightly odd comment for what appeared to be an arable farm). >I tentatively arranged a lunch date with him and one of the GIS people at the >County, but never followed it up. If I do that now, do you want to come along, >Donald? After pausing briefly to think about this.why not? I'd probably learn quite a lot. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK
Donald Allwright wrote: >Sent: 20 November 2008 12:59 PM >To: David Earl; osm >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its >strangleholdover "derived" geographic data in the UK > > >>From today's Guardian: >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google- >maps <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey- >google-maps> >> >>(not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). >> >>and the letter from OS which provoked it: >> >>http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and- >promotion.pdf <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for- >display-and-promotion.pdf> >> >>David > >This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap to >exist in the first place. I wonder if we should respond with some sort of >marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public >institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for their >future mapping needs. Absolutely, especially for those places that are "complete". Those of us in Birmingham will be prodding many groups locally, including the enormously bureaucratic Birmingham City Council once we have finished the first phase, which we hope to have done by Christmas [1] >In fact we should maybe even offer to complete >surveys in a particular area of any types of data that are incomplete but >which are important for the public good. One that particularly interests me >at the moment is public rights of way. It's tempting to look at an OS map >for public rights of way information before walking it and mapping it, >however if we are mapping what we see on the ground then this shouldn't be >necessary. The problem here is who says it's a public right of way. If you ask your local authority they will bring out there plans which give the details and reference numbers but these of course exist on OS mapping. Not easy to be definitive. >Should a public institution express an interest in information >on public rights of way in a particular square then I'd be more than happy >to help collect it from the marked paths found on the ground. We could >start by creating a section on the wiki providing details of how public >institutions might approach the subject, and a means for conveying suitable >requests to the community. Of course commercial companies might want to do >this too, and although some people might have reservations about this, they >are free to make donations to help OSM out! Wiki is a good idea to pool information, though I still think direct action with local authorities is the way to go. The more they know about OSM the better the chance they have of considering alternative solutions when a map related task or public service comes up. > >I'm reminded of how the Linux Kernel developers made an offer to hardware >manufacturers a couple of years back to write drivers for them, all they >had to do was ask and provide the necessary information/documentation. From >what I've read this has been very successful campaign. If we as members of >the OSM community can get a good reputation for responding to requests for >particular types of information in the same way, then the OS will either >become an irrelevance or will have to change its licensing policies. > >Donald Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On 20/11/2008 12:58, Donald Allwright wrote: > > >From today's Guardian: > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps > > > >(not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). > > > >and the letter from OS which provoked it: > > > > >http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf > > > >David > > This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap > to exist in the first place. Indeed, my reaction precisely. > I wonder if we should respond with some > sort of marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public > institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for > their future mapping needs. In fact we should maybe even offer to > complete surveys in a particular area of any types of data that are > incomplete but which are important for the public good. One that > particularly interests me at the moment is public rights of way. I had some contact with the RoW officer at Cambridgeshire County Council recently (he was pointing out that we had a footway down as a cycleway, though it still is because I didn't think I could use his info based as it was on an OS base map!) I tentatively arranged a lunch date with him and one of the GIS people at the County, but never followed it up. If I do that now, do you want to come along, Donald? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > and the letter from OS which provoked it: > > > http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf To me it seems that OS is broadening it's business into the "seriously overstating rights" trade... (Follow up should probably go to legal-talk, cc:ed) - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>From today's Guardian: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps > >(not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). > >and the letter from OS which provoked it: > >http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf > >David This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap to exist in the first place. I wonder if we should respond with some sort of marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for their future mapping needs. In fact we should maybe even offer to complete surveys in a particular area of any types of data that are incomplete but which are important for the public good. One that particularly interests me at the moment is public rights of way. It's tempting to look at an OS map for public rights of way information before walking it and mapping it, however if we are mapping what we see on the ground then this shouldn't be necessary. Should a public institution express an interest in information on public rights of way in a particular square then I'd be more than happy to help collect it from the marked paths found on the ground. We could start by creating a section on the wiki providing details of how public institutions might approach the subject, and a means for conveying suitable requests to the community. Of course commercial companies might want to do this too, and although some people might have reservations about this, they are free to make donations to help OSM out! I'm reminded of how the Linux Kernel developers made an offer to hardware manufacturers a couple of years back to write drivers for them, all they had to do was ask and provide the necessary information/documentation. From what I've read this has been very successful campaign. If we as members of the OSM community can get a good reputation for responding to requests for particular types of information in the same way, then the OS will either become an irrelevance or will have to change its licensing policies. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
From today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps (not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). and the letter from OS which provoked it: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenSpace
On Feb 3, 2008 5:28 PM, martin dodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, just wondering if anyone has seen a good mash-up using the Ordnance > Survey OpenSpace API? Is anyone using this for real?? Chippy's blog post following the preview day has a link to a few demos: http://thinkwhere.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/openspace-licences-limits-and-first-steps-plus-demo/ Not sure if there are any other examples out there though. > > cheers > martin > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > -- Nick Black http://www.blacksworld.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey OpenSpace
Hi, just wondering if anyone has seen a good mash-up using the Ordnance Survey OpenSpace API? Is anyone using this for real?? cheers martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
