Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[SK53]

I really don't have to justify how we in Nottingham have chosen to tag
things, or what we map. This has evolved as a local consensus and works
fine for us.

However, we have found retaining older information invaluable for numerous
purposes related to maintaining up-to-date data within OSM. In particular
those places whose occupants tend to be ephemeral, or which change names
frequently (marginal retail locations, nightclubs & some takeaways) can
often be linked to open data if and only if one knows one of the previous
names.

Additionally, locals will often refer to places/shops etc. by former
long-standing names. A good example of this is a restaurant who's name
escapes me, but if I call it The Priory, locals will know exactly where I
mean. In its previous guise as a Toby Carvery it was generally also known
by this name.

Lastly photographs get outdated and the ability to accurately locate a
photo can often be assisted if former business names are available for
cross-checking. This applies obviously to Mapillary & OpenStreetCam, but
also Geograph and my own personal photos which, for OSM purposes go back to
2009.

Jerry

On 21 December 2016 at 15:01, Dave F  wrote:

> Hi Andrew
>
> I wouldn't use FHRS:ID as the be all & end all. It doesn't mean they've
> closed down. On the ground verification is required. Depending on a local
> authority's preferences, existing companies changing a name, or a manager
> can trigger a new ID. Schools becoming academies in my area were given new
> ones.
>
> When a business closes down I fully delete the FHRS:ID. If a new one opens
> in the same premises I add the available data for it. This doesn't usually
> include FHRS, at first, as a premises has to be open for a while to gain a
> worthwhile rating.
>
> Comment on SK53:
> It's been agreed by many that OSM is not a historical store, but a record
> of what's currently there. Imagine how clogged the database would become if
> all historical data was retained or even added, as some wish to do. (I live
> in a Roman City, it would be a complete mess)
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> On 21/12/2016 13:05, Andrew Hain wrote:
>
>
> Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously
> appeared in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool.
> Should I add notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in
> the ground or is adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad
> idea?
>
> --
> Andrew
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing 
> listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[Dave F]

Hi Andrew

I wouldn't use FHRS:ID as the be all & end all. It doesn't mean they've 
closed down. On the ground verification is required. Depending on a 
local authority's preferences, existing companies changing a name, or a 
manager can trigger a new ID. Schools becoming academies in my area were 
given new ones.


When a business closes down I fully delete the FHRS:ID. If a new one 
opens in the same premises I add the available data for it. This doesn't 
usually include FHRS, at first, as a premises has to be open for a while 
to gain a worthwhile rating.


Comment on SK53:
It's been agreed by many that OSM is not a historical store, but a 
record of what's currently there. Imagine how clogged the database would 
become if all historical data was retained or even added, as some wish 
to do. (I live in a Roman City, it would be a complete mess)


Cheers
DaveF

On 21/12/2016 13:05, Andrew Hain wrote:


Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously 
appeared in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS 
tool. Should I add notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be 
checked in the ground or is adding notes from public quality assurance 
tools a bad idea?


--
Andrew


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[Andrew Hain]

I am more interested in the possibility that the business has closed.
--
Andrew

From: SK53 
Sent: 21 December 2016 13:17:48
To: Andrew Hain
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

Technically these are still FHRS identifiers as old identifiers are not reused. 
Obviously in the case where a new business in the same premises gets an FHRS 
identifier then that should take precedence.

We have quite a few in Nottingham, older ones are shunted into old_fhrs:id 
(pretty much our local convention for historic tags).

Non-current FHRS identifiers are still extremely useful; I was able to check 
something for robbieonsea the other day by referring to a 2013 FHRS file.

In the ideal world we'd have a full list of FHRS Ids over time.

Jerry

On 21 December 2016 at 13:05, Andrew Hain 
> wrote:

Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously appeared 
in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool. Should I add 
notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in the ground or is 
adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad idea?

--
Andrew

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[SK53]

Technically these are still FHRS identifiers as old identifiers are not
reused. Obviously in the case where a new business in the same premises
gets an FHRS identifier then that should take precedence.

We have quite a few in Nottingham, older ones are shunted into old_fhrs:id
(pretty much our local convention for historic tags).

Non-current FHRS identifiers are still extremely useful; I was able to
check something for robbieonsea the other day by referring to a 2013 FHRS
file.

In the ideal world we'd have a full list of FHRS Ids over time.

Jerry

On 21 December 2016 at 13:05, Andrew Hain 
wrote:

>
> Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously
> appeared in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool.
> Should I add notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in
> the ground or is adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad
> idea?
>
> --
> Andrew
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Notes for places removed from FHRS?

[Andrew Hain]

Richmond has updated its FHRS records and two entries that previously appeared 
in the list are now reported as unresolved in the GregRS tool. Should I add 
notes that they are no longer in FHRS and should be checked in the ground or is 
adding notes from public quality assurance tools a bad idea?

--
Andrew
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Colin Smale]

A PROW is "theoretical" in the sense that it may not follow the exact
same course on the ground. But the fact that a hedge or whatever is
blocking a PROW does not create a legal diversion of the PROW - you are
not automatically entitled to leave the PROW in order to continue your
walk. So the line of the PROW and the line of the "beaten track" may be
different. The path you walk in practice is obviously a path, but
whether a PROW exists over that path is something that only the council
(or the courts) can decide. There is a legal process for changing the
route of a PROW.. 

Hence: there is a need for both - surveys for the line of the path, and
information from the powers-that-be for the ROW status.

On 2016-12-21 13:25, Dave F wrote:

> Yeah, sorry about that ;-)
> 
> All: Are we greed that if it's *definitely* been issued under OGL, a local 
> authority's data can be used within OSM?
> 
> And by 'used' I don't necessarily mean copied directly. I'm overlaying my 
> LA's PROW data to see what's missing so I can walk & survey it detail.
> 
> Please tell me we're agreed that an on the ground survey is best :-) 
> 
> DaveF
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:28, Paul Berry wrote: 
> Thanks everyone for the rapid influx of comments. I've clearly mined a deep 
> vein here. 
> 
> In my locale, the council's records are overlays onto OS mapping, so this is 
> what I'm taking away from the conversation: 
> You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea of 
> what is missing and can then be surveyed. 
> 
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground 
> 
> Regards, 
> _Paul_ 
> 
> On 21 December 2016 at 10:59, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 10:39 +, Paul Berry wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-
>> date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then
>> be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of
>> public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a
>> rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area
>> and have had the need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
>> 
> In most cases it cannot be simply incorporated into OSM. The definitive
> maps were drawn onto OS maps, and all I have seen are overlayed onto OS
> maps with the words Crown Copyright.
> 
> You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
> of what is missing and can then be surveyed.
> 
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground. The maps were originally drawn by
> parish councils, and not always accurately. For example here in
> Shropshire a path is shown passing through a house, built on a right of
> way? No, the house was built in the 1500s, and the pen must have
> slipped.
> 
> The other advantage of surveying is that we can map the barriers, this
> is when OSM can beat OS as a walking map. When you survey the paths,
> please map the stiles, kissing_gates, gates etc. That is important
> information for many walkers.
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1] 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-

 [2]

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com [2] 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[2]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=emailutm_source=linkutm_campaign=sig-emailutm_content=emailclient___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[David Woolley]

On 21/12/16 12:25, Dave F wrote:

All: Are we greed that if it's *definitely* been issued under OGL, a
local authority's data can be used within OSM?


See 



An OGL may require specific attribution, in which case that attribution 
has to be added to the OSM licensing page before it is used.


There is a horrible bit of weasel wording that says no rights are 
granted for third party rights which the licensor does not have a right 
to grant.  That means that the council can use an OGL but the content 
could still be encumbered by OS copyrights.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Dave F]

Yeah, sorry about that ;-)

All: Are we greed that if it's *definitely* been issued under OGL, a 
local authority's data can be used within OSM?


And by 'used' I don't necessarily mean copied directly. I'm overlaying 
my LA's PROW data to see what's missing so I can walk & survey it detail.


Please tell me we're agreed that an on the ground survey is best :-)

DaveF


On 21/12/2016 11:28, Paul Berry wrote:
Thanks everyone for the rapid influx of comments. I've clearly mined a 
deep vein here.


In my locale, the council's records are overlays onto OS mapping, so 
this is what I'm taking away from the conversation:


You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an
idea

of what is missing and can then be surveyed.


Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
should map what is on the ground


Regards,
/Paul/


On 21 December 2016 at 10:59, Philip Barnes > wrote:


On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 10:39 +, Paul Berry wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an
up-to-
> date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then
> be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of
> public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a
> rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area
> and have had the need to get very familiar with my local
footpaths...
>
In most cases it cannot be simply incorporated into OSM. The
definitive
maps were drawn onto OS maps, and all I have seen are overlayed
onto OS
maps with the words Crown Copyright.

You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an
idea
of what is missing and can then be surveyed.

Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
should map what is on the ground. The maps were originally drawn by
parish councils, and not always accurately. For example here in
Shropshire a path is shown passing through a house, built on a
right of
way? No, the house was built in the 1500s, and the pen must have
slipped.

The other advantage of surveying is that we can map the barriers, this
is when OSM can beat OS as a walking map. When you survey the paths,
please map the stiles, kissing_gates, gates etc. That is important
information for many walkers.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[SK53]

A few quick notes, some of this has been said before:


   - The license issue is complex, largely because there is no adequate
   audit trail of metadata associated with the data. As Phil says many
   definitive maps were compiled by parish councillors, but this would have
   been in the 1940s and 1950s with maps which are now out-of-copyright. This
   data would have been digitised (any-time from 1980s), but perhaps against
   an OS map which is in copyright with or without revisions. Even a release
   of data under OGL really needs clearance that OSGB see that none of their
   data have been used.
   - Definitive statements are more useful for us as they should describe
   the path alignment in words. Most councils have not digitised their
   definitive statements, let along released them under OGL. (Presumably this
   is largely a workload issue: I have no idea if they would be amenable to
   allowing digitisation to be crowd sourced).
   - A few councils definitely have released their PRoW data under OGL, one
   of them is Nottingham
   , which I
   believe sought the relevant dispensation from the OS. As an urban area
   Nottingham was exempt from the initial PRoW collection of data and has only
   been doing this under the CROW Act of 2000. This data is therefore much
   more accurately digitised: the problem is that establishing the status of
   some paths has been an arduous process.
   - Other urban areas have significant problems in finding the actual
   course of rights of way because areas have been built over. I think it was
   Tony Wroblewski who told me once about these issues for the Littleover area
   in Derby.
   - The OS does not claim copyright in the PRoW data themselves. It may be
   working with them on a clearer statement may help all concerned. This may
   be something that OSM-UK's existence may make easier.
   - The OS omits some PRoW data in hilly areas where the line of the
   definitive map is clearly incorrect & following the line could put walkers
   into danger.
   - Definitive lines in many areas have fallen into disuse and been
   replaced by more attractive alternatives (typically a path round a field
   edge rather than across the ploughed field. A good example surveyed on
   several occasions for OSM is the bridleway
   across Laxton Common to the
   south of Wellow Wood. This is merely mapped with the designation & access
   tags as, although it is marked there, is no trace on the ground.
   - Minor deviations of a path from the definitive line are very common.
   - Mapping infrastructure, barriers etc is extremely useful & often makes
   route finding easier than with OS 1:25k maps.
   - Mapping footpaths is fun, it really just provides a different set of
   goals for constructing a country walk. So if you enjoy a country walk it
   just requires a little bit more planning.
   - Several of us create maps comparing OSM & data from rowmaps (me,
   Robert Whittaker, Nick Whitlegg at least). Some of these are available
   on-line. The ones I do are one-offs so dont get updated, but I currently
   have fairly recent ones for South Central England (October) and North
   Midlands (March).

Cheers,


Jerry

On 21 December 2016 at 10:39, Paul Berry  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-date
> copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then be
> incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of public but
> copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a rural right of way
> blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area and have had the need to
> get very familiar with my local footpaths...
>
> Regards,
> *Paul*
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Dave F]

Thanks to all who linked to the specific ERoY page. I had already read 
it, which is why I asked Chris H which license he believed was used. In 
this case it doesn't appear clear cut, which is disappointing.


DaveF

On 21/12/2016 11:50, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 21/12/2016 11:32, Dave F wrote:
Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the 
data that ROWmaps is using?


The actual page at the rowmaps site is:

http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/


It seems to say (and I'm paraphrasing) "ERYC say it's Crown Copyright, 
but the OS say 'All data exempted by Ordnance Survey is now covered by 
the Open Government Licence (OGL)' [but they don't say what data is 
exempted]" and then says "So it's possible for you to use this data 
provided you say that it is public sector information released by the 
council of East Riding of Yorkshire under the Open Government Licence".


I'm not convinced it's possible to infer the one from the other 
without much more detail than is on that page.   That doesn't mean 
that somewhere those details don't exist - it just means that I 
wouldn't add data from rowmaps to OSM without more licence details.


However, to answer the original question:

1) Yes, some local authorities have made explicit releases of 
genuinely open data.


2) If if they haven't, and rights-of-way maps are encumbered by other 
licences, the council's "definitive statement" may well be admissable 
(something like "FP123 starts at the junction of X road and Y road and 
runs across the field to the gate at the north of Z house").


Best Regards,

Andy





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Owen Boswarva]

Let me know when the Council takes action against rowmaps. Until then it's
just two conflicting accounts, neither of which is independently verifiable.

Barry can speak for himself of course, but I can't see that he owes you an
explanation.

Owen
@owenboswarva

On 21 December 2016 at 11:53, Chris Hill  wrote:

Owen, I’ve seen that before, but it is at odds with my experience.
>
> I have asked ERoY council to release their Rights of Way data under OGL
> repeatedly. I have asked by email, through their customer services web
> page, by twitter, by letter, by telephone, by asking my local councillors
> to help and every time they refuse, saying there is no need as they publish
> the data on a (copyright) map. There are various other Open Data requests
> against ERoY council, all have been refused.
>
> When I spoke on the telephone I used rowmaps as an example of how they had
> already released the data under OGL. I was told there was no record of this
> data being released under any open licence.
>
> This is why I tried to contact Barry to get an explanation and to
> strengthen my case. He has not replied to me.
>
> Chris Hill
> (User chillly)
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Owen Boswarva  wrote:
>
> The circumstances under which the East Riding of Yorkshire data was
> provided to rowmaps are set out here:
>
> http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/
>
> I've no reason to mistrust Barry's account. But there is obviously a
> provenance issue for other users if the Council as copyright holder has not
> confirmed the licensing publicly.
>
> This is a case by case problem, as the OGL status of some of the other
> rights of way datasets on rowmaps can be confirmed via council sites.
>
> I can't see that http://www.rowmaps.com/ has rights of way data for Hull.
>
> Owen
> @owenboswarva
>
> On 21 December 2016 at 11:32, Dave F  wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the
>> data that ROWmaps is using?
>>
>> DaveF.
>>
>> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>>
>> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and
>> Hull data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>>
>> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence.
>> If anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that
>> edit.
>>
>>
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>>
>> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many
>> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will
>> almost certainly be online.
>>
>> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will
>> know the copyright status.
>>
>>
>> Could you expand on your claims please.
>>
>> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the
>> distributor wouldn't know?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: Avast logo]
>> 
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

Owen, I’ve seen that before, but it is at odds with my experience.

I have asked ERoY council to release their Rights of Way data under OGL 
repeatedly. I have asked by email, through their customer services web page, by 
twitter, by letter, by telephone, by asking my local councillors to help and 
every time they refuse, saying there is no need as they publish the data on a 
(copyright) map. There are various other Open Data requests against ERoY 
council, all have been refused. 

When I spoke on the telephone I used rowmaps as an example of how they had 
already released the data under OGL. I was told there was no record of this 
data being released under any open licence. 

This is why I tried to contact Barry to get an explanation and to strengthen my 
case. He has not replied to me.

Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Owen Boswarva  wrote:
> 
> The circumstances under which the East Riding of Yorkshire data was provided 
> to rowmaps are set out here:
> 
> http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/ 
> 
> I've no reason to mistrust Barry's account. But there is obviously a 
> provenance issue for other users if the Council as copyright holder has not 
> confirmed the licensing publicly.
> 
> This is a case by case problem, as the OGL status of some of the other rights 
> of way datasets on rowmaps can be confirmed via council sites.
> 
> I can't see that http://www.rowmaps.com/  has rights 
> of way data for Hull.
> 
> Owen
> @owenboswarva
> 
> On 21 December 2016 at 11:32, Dave F  > wrote:
> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data 
> that ROWmaps is using?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull 
>> data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>> 
>> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
>> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 
>> 
>> 
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
 A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
 definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
 almost certainly be online.
 
 It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
 know the copyright status.
>>> 
>>> Could you expand on your claims please.
>>> 
>>> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ 
>>>  isn't OGL & the distributor wouldn't know?
>>> 
>>> DaveF
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Andy Townsend]

On 21/12/2016 11:32, Dave F wrote:
Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the 
data that ROWmaps is using?


The actual page at the rowmaps site is:

http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/


It seems to say (and I'm paraphrasing) "ERYC say it's Crown Copyright, 
but the OS say 'All data exempted by Ordnance Survey is now covered by 
the Open Government Licence (OGL)' [but they don't say what data is 
exempted]" and then says "So it's possible for you to use this data 
provided you say that it is public sector information released by the 
council of East Riding of Yorkshire under the Open Government Licence".


I'm not convinced it's possible to infer the one from the other without 
much more detail than is on that page.   That doesn't mean that 
somewhere those details don't exist - it just means that I wouldn't add 
data from rowmaps to OSM without more licence details.


However, to answer the original question:

1) Yes, some local authorities have made explicit releases of genuinely 
open data.


2) If if they haven't, and rights-of-way maps are encumbered by other 
licences, the council's "definitive statement" may well be admissable 
(something like "FP123 starts at the junction of X road and Y road and 
runs across the field to the gate at the north of Z house").


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[David Woolley]

On 21/12/16 11:32, Dave F wrote:

Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the
data that ROWmaps is using?


Assuming it was taken from: 
 
for which the copyright details are on 



I would say that the overlay is copyright the council with no licence 
grant other than the implied ones to allow viewing via a web browsers.


There are two alternative OS licences, and it is not clear which one 
relates to the background, but in the absence of a specific ODL 
permission on the background, I would say the restrictive licence 
applies.  OSM requires permission to copy, permission for derivative 
works, and permission for commercial use, none of which are given.


There is no discussion that the overlay  may itself be a derivative of 
OS data, but the lack of a licence from the council means that should be 
a non-issue for end users, who simply cannot copy it.  If it is based on 
details like hedgerows, it will be derived from data under hte more 
restrictive licence.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Colin Smale]

http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/ contains the following text: 

"The council of East Riding of Yorkshire have provided me with an ESRI
shape file [1] that contains the details of their public rights of way.
The ESRI shape file seems to have been created on 27th February 2014.
The Council also provides information about public rights of way on its
online map [2]. It may be that their map uses more up-to-date
information. 

"An authority's Definitive Map is the authoritative source of their
rights of way. The details of the public rights of way network contained
in an authority's data are for information only, and are an
interpretation of the Definitive Map, not the Definitive Map itself, and
should not be relied on for determining the position or alignment of any
public right of way. For legal purposes, an authority's data does not
replace their Definitive Map. And changes may have been made to the
Definitive Map that are not included in their data. The authority's data
contains Ordnance Survey data (c) Crown copyright and database right
2013. Attempting to view this data with more detail than 1:1 may
produce an inaccurate rendering of the route of a public right of way. 

"The ESRI shape file was made available by the council of East Riding of
Yorkshire under terms equivalent to the Ordnance Survey OpenData
Licence. When I e-mailed the Ordnance Survey about the councils that
had, during the last few years, successfully obtained an exemption from
the Public Sector Mapping Agreement and released their data under terms
equivalent to the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence, they replied _All
data exempted by Ordnance Survey is now covered by the Open Government
Licence (OGL), which superseded its own OS OpenData licence in April
2015._So it's possible for you to use this data provided you say that it
is public sector information released by the council of East Riding of
Yorkshire under the Open Government Licence [3]."

On 2016-12-21 12:32, Dave F wrote:

> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data 
> that ROWmaps is using?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote: Row maps is definitely not based on 
> OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull data that both councils have 
> explicitly refused to release as OGL. 
> 
> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 
> 
> Chris Hill 
> (User chillly) 
> 
> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F  wrote: 
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
> almost certainly be online.
> 
> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
> know the copyright status. 
> Could you expand on your claims please.
> 
> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the 
> distributor wouldn't know?
> 
> DaveF
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-

 [4]

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com [4] 

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 

Links:
--
[1] http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/working%20prow.zip
[2] http://walkingtheriding.eastriding.gov.uk/
[3]
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
[4]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=emailutm_source=linkutm_campaign=sig-emailutm_content=emailclient___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

When I asked the council they said they had no record of releasing the data 
under any licence. The data is published on a copyright map on the ERoY web 
site and the council always pointed me to that. The data is available to be 
extracted from that site, but obviously I can’t use that as it is copyright. 
Barry has not told me where he got the data from that he uses. I have asked.

Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:32, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data 
> that ROWmaps is using?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull 
>> data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>> 
>> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
>> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 
>> 
>> 
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
 A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
 definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
 almost certainly be online.
 
 It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
 know the copyright status.
>>> 
>>> Could you expand on your claims please.
>>> 
>>> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ 
>>>  isn't OGL & the distributor wouldn't know?
>>> 
>>> DaveF
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Owen Boswarva]

The circumstances under which the East Riding of Yorkshire data was
provided to rowmaps are set out here:

http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/

I've no reason to mistrust Barry's account. But there is obviously a
provenance issue for other users if the Council as copyright holder has not
confirmed the licensing publicly.

This is a case by case problem, as the OGL status of some of the other
rights of way datasets on rowmaps can be confirmed via council sites.

I can't see that http://www.rowmaps.com/ has rights of way data for Hull.

Owen
@owenboswarva

On 21 December 2016 at 11:32, Dave F  wrote:

> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data
> that ROWmaps is using?
>
> DaveF.
>
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>
> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull
> data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>
> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If
> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit.
>
>
> Chris Hill
> (User chillly)
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F  wrote:
>
>
> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>
> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many
> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will
> almost certainly be online.
>
> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will
> know the copyright status.
>
>
> Could you expand on your claims please.
>
> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the
> distributor wouldn't know?
>
> DaveF
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Dave F]

Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the 
data that ROWmaps is using?


DaveF.

On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and 
Hull data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.


I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney 
silence. If anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would 
revert that edit.



Chris Hill
(User chillly)



On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F > wrote:



On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that 
many definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they 
are, they will almost certainly be online.


It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map 
will know the copyright status.


Could you expand on your claims please.

Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & 
the distributor wouldn't know?


DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[David Woolley]

On 21/12/16 11:10, Dave F wrote:


It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map
will know the copyright status.


Could you expand on your claims please.


Whilst it appears that more than I thought publish online, even if the 
jury is out on licensing, those that don't require you to physically 
visit their offices.  I am referring to the clerks that would provide 
you with the paper copies of, or other means to view, the maps.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Paul Berry]

Thanks everyone for the rapid influx of comments. I've clearly mined a deep
vein here.

In my locale, the council's records are overlays onto OS mapping, so this
is what I'm taking away from the conversation:

You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
>
of what is missing and can then be surveyed.



>
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground


Regards,
*Paul*


On 21 December 2016 at 10:59, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 10:39 +, Paul Berry wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-
> > date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then
> > be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of
> > public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a
> > rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area
> > and have had the need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
> >
> In most cases it cannot be simply incorporated into OSM. The definitive
> maps were drawn onto OS maps, and all I have seen are overlayed onto OS
> maps with the words Crown Copyright.
>
> You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
> of what is missing and can then be surveyed.
>
> Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
> should map what is on the ground. The maps were originally drawn by
> parish councils, and not always accurately. For example here in
> Shropshire a path is shown passing through a house, built on a right of
> way? No, the house was built in the 1500s, and the pen must have
> slipped.
>
> The other advantage of surveying is that we can map the barriers, this
> is when OSM can beat OS as a walking map. When you survey the paths,
> please map the stiles, kissing_gates, gates etc. That is important
> information for many walkers.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 11:07 +, Chris Hill wrote:
> Have any Local Authorities released their definitive maps or
> statements under OGL? I want to know so I can use examples as a lever
> to persuade East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City councils to
> release *anything* as open data. 
> 
The big problem there is unless they have done an independent survey,
then any digitisation will still retain the Crown Copyright of the
original definitive map. IMHO that include rowmaps too.

For example the parish councilors drawing in the rights of way, said
that path runs parallel to that hedge. The hedge is where it is because
OS surveyed it.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

I believe that link to be unsupported by contradicting evidence.

Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:15, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> Hi
> I'm a bit confused. Both Chris & David W. appear to have missed the link to 
> http://www.rowmaps.com/ . Can others see it?
> 
> DaveF.
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:07, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Have any Local Authorities released their definitive maps or statements 
>> under OGL? I want to know so I can use examples as a lever to persuade East 
>> Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City councils to release *anything* as open 
>> data. 
>> 
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 10:54, Dave F >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Paul
>>> Short answer: Yes, it can be incorporated as long as it's been issued under 
>>> the Open Government Licence.
>>> http://www.rowmaps.com/ 
>>> 
>>> However, this data is not always the most accurate & the consensus is that 
>>> it's much better if "witnessed" by walking it. For example, the direction 
>>> of a few paths on the OS map in my area are set by hedgerows which have 
>>> long since been uprooted.
>>> 
>>> DaveF 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 21/12/2016 10:39, Paul Berry wrote:
 Hi everyone,
 
 As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-date 
 copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then be 
 incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of public 
 but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a rural right of 
 way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area and have had the 
 need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
 
 Regards,
 Paul
 
 
 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>>  
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
>>> www.avast.com 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
> www.avast.com 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Chris Hill]

Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull data 
that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.

I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If 
anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit. 


Chris Hill
(User chillly)



> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
>> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will 
>> almost certainly be online.
>> 
>> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will 
>> know the copyright status.
> 
> Could you expand on your claims please.
> 
> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the 
> distributor wouldn't know?
> 
> DaveF
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Dave F]

Hi
I'm a bit confused. Both Chris & David W. appear to have missed the link 
to http://www.rowmaps.com/. Can others see it?


DaveF.

On 21/12/2016 11:07, Chris Hill wrote:
Have any Local Authorities released their definitive maps or 
statements under OGL? I want to know so I can use examples as a lever 
to persuade East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull City councils to release 
*anything* as open data.


Chris Hill
(User chillly)



On 21 Dec 2016, at 10:54, Dave F > wrote:


Hi Paul
Short answer: Yes, it can be incorporated as long as it's been issued 
under the Open Government Licence.

http://www.rowmaps.com/

However, this data is not always the most accurate & the consensus is 
that it's much better if "witnessed" by walking it. For example, the 
direction of a few paths on the OS map in my area are set by 
hedgerows which have long since been uprooted.


DaveF


On 21/12/2016 10:39, Paul Berry wrote:

Hi everyone,

As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an 
up-to-date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this 
information then be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or 
is it a case of public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a 
complaint about a rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up 
order) in my area and have had the need to get very familiar with my 
local footpaths...


Regards,
/Paul/


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb





Avast logo 
 
	


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com 
 




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Dave F]

On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they 
will almost certainly be online.


It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map 
will know the copyright status.


Could you expand on your claims please.

Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the 
distributor wouldn't know?


DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[David Woolley]

On 21/12/16 10:54, Dave F wrote:

Short answer: Yes, it can be incorporated as long as it's been issued
under the Open Government Licence.
http://www.rowmaps.com/


A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many 
definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they 
will almost certainly be online.


It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map 
will know the copyright status.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 10:39 +, Paul Berry wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-
> date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then
> be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of
> public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a
> rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area
> and have had the need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...
> 
In most cases it cannot be simply incorporated into OSM. The definitive
maps were drawn onto OS maps, and all I have seen are overlayed onto OS
maps with the words Crown Copyright.

You should not copy from these maps, but they are useful to get an idea
of what is missing and can then be surveyed.

Another reason not to copy is that they are not 100% accurate and we
should map what is on the ground. The maps were originally drawn by
parish councils, and not always accurately. For example here in
Shropshire a path is shown passing through a house, built on a right of
way? No, the house was built in the 1500s, and the pen must have
slipped.

The other advantage of surveying is that we can map the barriers, this
is when OSM can beat OS as a walking map. When you survey the paths,
please map the stiles, kissing_gates, gates etc. That is important
information for many walkers.

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Dave F]

Hi Paul
Short answer: Yes, it can be incorporated as long as it's been issued 
under the Open Government Licence.

http://www.rowmaps.com/

However, this data is not always the most accurate & the consensus is 
that it's much better if "witnessed" by walking it. For example, the 
direction of a few paths on the OS map in my area are set by hedgerows 
which have long since been uprooted.


DaveF


On 21/12/2016 10:39, Paul Berry wrote:

Hi everyone,

As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an 
up-to-date copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information 
then be incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case 
of public but copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a 
rural right of way blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area 
and have had the need to get very familiar with my local footpaths...


Regards,
/Paul/


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Paul Berry]

Hi everyone,

As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-date
copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then be
incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of public but
copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a rural right of way
blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area and have had the need to
get very familiar with my local footpaths...

Regards,
*Paul*
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] 3rd Midlands OSM New Year Meetup

[SK53]

I'll do my best to get along.

These paths have not only been well surveyed over past 7 years, but they
are short. I can probably describe each of these routes across the railway
to a very fine level of detail. For instance there is a fine hedge of Holly
along the east side of the path north of Barratt Lane  no 1 crossing. A
great place for Holly Blue butterflies in the Spring.

Defending the Attenborough crossings will undoubtedly generate a great
campaigning team. I'm already in touch with members of the reserve
management committee and Beeston Wildlife Group (there is a distinct
overlap).

Footpaths in the countryside often don't gave such defenders, getting them
mapped & problems reported is a very worthwhile OSM activity. In some parts
of the country highway authorities don't even meet the bare minimum of
their statutory duties for rights of way. (I'm still awaiting a response
from Kent about a blocked path I reported months ago).

Cheers,

Jerry

On 20 Dec 2016 22:07, "Philip Barnes"  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue Dec 20 21:22:26 2016 GMT, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > On 20/12/2016 20:55, Paul Sladen wrote:
> > >
> > > [Based on developments today], Why not hold it at the Bluebell in
> > > Attenborough on the evening of Wednesday, 8 January 2016[1].
> >
> > Because it'd be dark? :)
>
> And a worknight would exclude the West Midlands part of The Midlands ;)
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> --
> Sent from my Jolla
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb