[Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hi, Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? Generally I don't just copy the data into OSM anyway: it's more fun to survey :-) However I'm wondering whether we can do this? 1. Use the council data to verify whether a footpath surveyed by GPS is actually a public footpath, in cases when the waymarking is ambiguous and we think it's a right of way but may or may not be; 2. Removing the designation tag from a footpath surveyed from GPS before the council data was available. I've discovered that a path I surveyed in 2010 is not actually a right of way, according to Barry Cornelius' rownmaps.com. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hi Nick, We have Open Data locally for Nottingham ProW (significant because the city was exempt from maintaining a definitive map until recently). So far all I have done is added ref information to paths already mapped. Even with open data the situation is still confusing: for instance a footpath described as a ProW on a statement on the ground has not yet been recognised and may require the dispute to be settled in the High Courthttp://parkviews.blogspot.co.uk/p/park-footpath.html. I got distracted by shops pubs, which are nearing a reasonable degree of completion. However the experience gained of using open data to drive mapping surveys convinces me that by far and away the best use of open data is to drive targeted surveys for particular groups of data. By just looking for shops I've done real surveys in parts of Nottingham which hitherto were mainly arm-chair tracing. I'm sure a similar approach with ProW data would pay dividends: even if just to check where footpaths/bridleways join roads which would enable quick checking of signage. One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the official websites of the Highway Authorities, not least because then one is reasonably sure that they have checked with OSGB re. OS data. Best wishes, Jerry Clough On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.ukwrote: Hi, Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? Generally I don't just copy the data into OSM anyway: it's more fun to survey :-) However I'm wondering whether we can do this? 1. Use the council data to verify whether a footpath surveyed by GPS is actually a public footpath, in cases when the waymarking is ambiguous and we think it's a right of way but may or may not be; 2. Removing the designation tag from a footpath surveyed from GPS before the council data was available. I've discovered that a path I surveyed in 2010 is not actually a right of way, according to Barry Cornelius' rownmaps.com. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013, sk53.osm wrote: One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the official websites of the Highway Authorities, not least because then one is reasonably sure that they have checked with OSGB re. OS data. This approach to releasing PROW data is taken only by the local authorities of Devon, Hampshire, North York Moors National Park, Nottingham (City of) and Oxfordshire. The appropriate web pages are: http://gis.devon.gov.uk/basedata/download.htm http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/living-in/how-the-authority-works/data/dataset-downloads http://www.opendatanottingham.org.uk/dataset.aspx?id=74 http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/content/countryside-access-maps If you know of any other local authority that has a web page releasing their data, please let me know. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hello Jerry (and everyone else who's replied), Ok thanks for that. The council concerned in my case is Wiltshire. I am keen to not have the incorrectly tagged as designation=public_footpath way remaining incorrectly tagged in OSM, for the simple reason it's incorrect. However it doesn't look like I can use the Wiltshire data on Barry's site as evidence for this. What I will do, therefore, is next time in the area, walk the footpath again to check that there are no ROW signs. If there are not, I think that's evidence enough that the designation tag can be removed. I obviously mis-interpreted a ROW sign last time I was there as indicating that path. When HCC released their data ISTR the feeling was a bit different and it was basically ok to add it to OSM (or at least it hadn't been discussed in length). Therefore I think I used HCC data to add a missing segment of path - so it looks like I'll have to chop that one out. Nick -sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: - To: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk From: sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com Date: 06/06/2013 10:59AM Cc: Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org talk-gb@openstreetmap.org, legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data Hi Nick, We have Open Data locally for Nottingham ProW (significant because the city was exempt from maintaining a definitive map until recently). So far all I have done is added ref information to paths already mapped. Even with open data the situation is still confusing: for instance a footpath described as a ProW on a statement on the ground has not yet been recognised and may require the dispute to be settled in the High Court. I got distracted by shops pubs, which are nearing a reasonable degree of completion. However the experience gained of using open data to drive mapping surveys convinces me that by far and away the best use of open data is to drive targeted surveys for particular groups of data. By just looking for shops I've done real surveys in parts of Nottingham which hitherto were mainly arm-chair tracing. I'm sure a similar approach with ProW data would pay dividends: even if just to check where footpaths/bridleways join roads which would enable quick checking of signage. One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the official websites of the Highway Authorities, not least because then one is reasonably sure that they have checked with OSGB re. OS data. Best wishes, Jerry Clough On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hi, Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? Generally I don't just copy the data into OSM anyway: it's more fun to survey :-) However I'm wondering whether we can do this? 1. Use the council data to verify whether a footpath surveyed by GPS is actually a public footpath, in cases when the waymarking is ambiguous and we think it's a right of way but may or may not be; 2. Removing the designation tag from a footpath surveyed from GPS before the council data was available. I've discovered that a path I surveyed in 2010 is not actually a right of way, according to Barry Cornelius' rownmaps.com. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
Hi Jerry, On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:59:11 +0100, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: ... One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the official websites of the Highway Authorities, not least because then one is reasonably sure that they have checked with OSGB re. OS data. ... I think you are asking a lot if individual contributors who are not lawyers should be expected to second guess councils and the licenses they choose to release data under. If an OSM contributor uses this data (either by contributing it to OSM or outside the project) in good faith and in accordance with the stated license then it is hard to see what the comeback could be either to OSM or to the individual. It may be the case that PRoW geometries include OS data but I don't see that this would apply to designations and prow refs that are surely owned and managed by the councils and therefore theirs to license how they see fit. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data
On 6 June 2013 08:11, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Just wondering what the current state of what we can do with the UK council footpath open data is? [ I previously posted this to legal-talk, but seeing as all the discussion is taking place here now... ] It will depend what data you are referring to. But the general rule will apply: you can only use data/information that is subject to someone else's copyright if you either have explicit permission to use it in OSM, or permission to use it under a license that's compatible with OSM's license. * In the case of current OS Landranger and Explorer maps showing Public Rights of Way, these are copyright Ordnance Survey. I'm not aware of OS giving any permissions to re-use these maps, and so are not usable in OSM. * In the case of the Definitive Maps maintained by each council, then these contain IP rights belonging to both the Council and Ordnance Survey. I'm not aware of OS giving any permissions to re-use these maps themselves. Hence they're not usable for OSM. * In the case of GIS data for PRoW routes derived from Definitive Maps, these also contain IP rights belonging to both the Council and Ordnance Survey. However, under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement, the councils can apply for permission from OS to release them under the OS OpenData License. However, there are question marks over whether this license is compatible with the ODbL+DbCL used by OSM. The most recent statement I'm aware of from OS maintains that their license is not compatible, and hence we shouldn't make use of this data in OSM (unless we can obtain separate explicit permission from both the council and OS). See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html and http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for more discussion. * In the case of the Definitive Statements that each council must maintain, OS has publicly stated that they don't claim any rights in them, so the only IP rights rest with the council. Hence if you can obtain permission from the Council (either explicitly for OSM, or under a suitable licence), then it is ok to use them for OSM. For some advice about how to obtain Defintiive Statements and ask for permission to use them in OSM, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html Having said that, while various sources listed above are not usable directly in OSM, there's nothing to stop you using such a source to look for discrepancies in the current OSM data, and then using that information to choose where to survey or search other sources for information that can be used for OSM mapping. However, doing this, you'd have to be careful that whatever you map in OSM comes only from the sources you can use, and isn't tainted by the sources that you can't. Hope that helps, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Current status on UK Council footpath data
On 6 June 2013 10:59, sk53.osm sk53@gmail.com wrote: One thing which concerns me is the 'private' release of Open Data. A number of counties have given ProW data to persistent pesterers (not meant perjoratively) apparently under a suitable license. I'd far rather see this published on the official websites of the Highway Authorities, not least because then one is reasonably sure that they have checked with OSGB re. OS data. I'd very much prefer any data releases to be officially published so anyone can use them under the same terms, and be sure what the terms are. Unfortunately from the Council's point of view it's a lot less effort to say yes to an individual requester, than it is to worry about how they might host the data on their website and deal with keeping it up to date there. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-legal-talk] Current status on UK Council footpath data
On 6 June 2013 13:15, o...@k3v.eu wrote: I think you are asking a lot if individual contributors who are not lawyers should be expected to second guess councils and the licenses they choose to release data under. This is definitely a big problem for OSM, as many mappers seem to be not properly checking the licence terms, or even realising that they need to. The general rule should be if you're not 100% sure, then you shouldn't use the source. OSM should have some sort of central clearing body to check licences for mappers. Unfortunately LWG don't seem to be interested in taking on this role, and instead expect individual contributors to act as lawyers and determine licence compatibility for themselves. If an OSM contributor uses this data (either by contributing it to OSM or outside the project) in good faith and in accordance with the stated license then it is hard to see what the comeback could be either to OSM or to the individual. OSM could be in trouble for copyright violation, or at least made to remove the offending items. As we saw with the redaction process, this can do more damage than just undoing the original infringements, as later work built on top of it may have to be removed too. I don't think good faith is going to count for much, though we may be saved by potential bad PR for anyone tried anything major against OSM. Nevertheless, even as just a matter of principle, we should really be doing our best to avoid getting in to the situation where stuff is being added from sources under licenses that don't allow it. As a start, I think OSMF should maintain a list of common licences, with details of whether they are deemed acceptable or unacceptable for use in OSM. It will then be much easier for mappers check source licences against the list. If it doesn't appear, there may be more incentive for the mapper to investigate further or ask for advice. As it is now, mappers may just see any sort of open data licence and assume it's ok. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Nottingham Pub Meetup restarting
I've put dates in the wiki for next 3 months of Nottingham pub meetings: next Tuesday 11th July 9th August 13th All will be at 19:30 at the Lincolnshire Poacher. A mapping activity for an hour beforehand (which may start from somewhere else) Details on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nottingham/Pub_Meetup. September is SotM, but might do something to coincide with one of the big geo events: I'm contemplating a Dead Pub Crawl! Regards, Jerry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
