Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:53:15 + Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Pragmatically though is it really going to do any harm? Particularly > if we are just adding a designation tag rather than using the HCC > data to identify the course of a path? If you only interested in path designation (and possibly ref) wouldn't it make more sense to ask the council to release the definitive statements under the OGL? Given that the OS has publicly announced that it asserts no copyright over them and HCC is willing to release RoW data as "OpenData" I don't foresee this being too hard to achieve and it would eliminate any risk for OSM. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Pragmatically though is it really going to do any harm? Particularly if we are just adding a designation tag rather than using the HCC data to identify the course of a path? The path could just be tagged with "designation=public_footpath; source=HCC Open Data, (c) OS, OS OpenData Licence" and then in the (exceedingly unlikely, given OS's currently open-minded stance towards open data) case that the OS then decide they don't want the data in OSM, we could just remove the designation tag. Nick -"Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" wrote: - To: talk-gb From: "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" Date: 05/12/2013 12:20PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data On 4 December 2013 11:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Re the HCC data I have had this communication from Dan at HCC. > > "Hi Nick, > > I have been in comms with my contact at OS and the feedback I have had is > that ODBL and OS Open Licence can work together. As long as there is still > attribution to OS with the data in an ODBL database then all should be fine > and that > > “Anyone using data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence is obliged to > ensure that its terms are met” > > This was not their legal teams response but thought it may help, direct > contact with their legal is recommended when trying to sort something out > for sure. > > Dan" > > So it looks like it can be used, but attribution to OS has to be included; > this would, I guess (but IANAL) be covered by mentioning the OS in the > "source" tag. If that's the only "permission" we have, then I don't think it's enough. The statement is rather non-committal, and it only offers second-hand advice as to whether the licences are compatible, rather than being an explicit permission to use the data. I don't see how the advice would change the current situation as described at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html . In particular, we now have something more definitive from Ordnance Survey, stating their view is that the OS OpenData Licence is not forward compatible with ODbL. Then, without any specific permission from both rights holders, I don't see how we can make use of the HCC data in OSM. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On 03/12/2013 21:36, Robert Norris wrote: Normally I visually compare Hants KML (and indeed West Sussex) vs OSM tile images to identify missing ROWs and then make that a basis to include in a route for a days out walking or cycling. This might help: http://bl.ocks.org/Jonobennett/raw/7152386/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On 4 December 2013 11:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > Re the HCC data I have had this communication from Dan at HCC. > > "Hi Nick, > > I have been in comms with my contact at OS and the feedback I have had is > that ODBL and OS Open Licence can work together. As long as there is still > attribution to OS with the data in an ODBL database then all should be fine > and that > > “Anyone using data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence is obliged to > ensure that its terms are met” > > This was not their legal teams response but thought it may help, direct > contact with their legal is recommended when trying to sort something out > for sure. > > Dan" > > So it looks like it can be used, but attribution to OS has to be included; > this would, I guess (but IANAL) be covered by mentioning the OS in the > "source" tag. If that's the only "permission" we have, then I don't think it's enough. The statement is rather non-committal, and it only offers second-hand advice as to whether the licences are compatible, rather than being an explicit permission to use the data. I don't see how the advice would change the current situation as described at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html . In particular, we now have something more definitive from Ordnance Survey, stating their view is that the OS OpenData Licence is not forward compatible with ODbL. Then, without any specific permission from both rights holders, I don't see how we can make use of the HCC data in OSM. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
I was thinking about overlaying the HCC KML over OSM in Marble ( http://marble.kde.org ), but I guess both achieve the same thing. Although I would caution that I have in the last couple of days noticed that the HCC KML is more out of date than HCC's new online map overlay - I originally thought they were using the same file and it appears not. Regards Robert On 04/12/13 19:52, Dudley Ibbett wrote: Only a few weeks ago I was talking with a Council Officer involved in developing a new "way" with a local walking group. They've discovered that many of the footpaths that make up the way no longer follow the definitive map and are now debating as to who is going to pay to get the map changed. I should imagine they cannot endorse the work unless this is resolved but the cannot reasonably ask the landowners to pay up as the line of the footpaths have changed due to usage rather than the landowners redirecting or obstructing the paths. Personally I am using the www.rowmaps.com for research, i.e. identifying paths that aren't in OSM, and then going out and walking them. It is certainly becoming more challenging as many of these are rarely walked. Interestingly enough I used the row data from the above site to inform Staffordshire Council of an obstruction only earlier this week. I provided all the numbers for the row along with a GR for the obstruction. An email came back, telling me the GR was in Derbyshire, so they totally ignored all the row numbers/descriptions I had provided. I doubled checked the GR by putting it in the OS website and responded that it was in Staffordshire. I've yet to have a response! If I have to go round boggy parts of a field etc. I ignore this and just put in a straight line. If landowners are concerned about keeping walkers to a particular line I generally find they put up fences and lots of way markers/signs. Alternatively, they remove every possible evidence of a row in the hope you'll think it no longer exists and take an alternative route. The one great thing we can do in OSM is put in the detail as actual walkers (i.e. on the ground surveyors). Regards Dudley Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 02:52:58 + From: m...@wintonian.net To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data Really what I meant was where the is a RoW (as evidenced by the definitive map) but the actual line that is used has moved over time, perhaps to avoid a fallen tree or an area that has become wet and boggy over the years or otherwise more difficult to traverse than the new line. Therefore what happens is that that actual line used becomes different to the legal line, sometimes the definitive map is updated to reflect this but this seem to be normally only when there is another reason to modify the entry. I hope that's clearer. Regards Robert On 04/12/13 02:24, Andy Street wrote: On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 + Jonathan wrote: Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other side. Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing. Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path, access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either permissive or private. If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too. ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Only a few weeks ago I was talking with a Council Officer involved in developing a new "way" with a local walking group. They've discovered that many of the footpaths that make up the way no longer follow the definitive map and are now debating as to who is going to pay to get the map changed. I should imagine they cannot endorse the work unless this is resolved but the cannot reasonably ask the landowners to pay up as the line of the footpaths have changed due to usage rather than the landowners redirecting or obstructing the paths. Personally I am using the www.rowmaps.com for research, i.e. identifying paths that aren't in OSM, and then going out and walking them. It is certainly becoming more challenging as many of these are rarely walked. Interestingly enough I used the row data from the above site to inform Staffordshire Council of an obstruction only earlier this week. I provided all the numbers for the row along with a GR for the obstruction. An email came back, telling me the GR was in Derbyshire, so they totally ignored all the row numbers/descriptions I had provided. I doubled checked the GR by putting it in the OS website and responded that it was in Staffordshire. I've yet to have a response! If I have to go round boggy parts of a field etc. I ignore this and just put in a straight line. If landowners are concerned about keeping walkers to a particular line I generally find they put up fences and lots of way markers/signs. Alternatively, they remove every possible evidence of a row in the hope you'll think it no longer exists and take an alternative route. The one great thing we can do in OSM is put in the detail as actual walkers (i.e. on the ground surveyors). Regards Dudley > Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 02:52:58 + > From: m...@wintonian.net > To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data > > Really what I meant was where the is a RoW (as evidenced by the > definitive map) but the actual line that is used has moved over time, > perhaps to avoid a fallen tree or an area that has become wet and boggy > over the years or otherwise more difficult to traverse than the new line. > > Therefore what happens is that that actual line used becomes different > to the legal line, sometimes the definitive map is updated to reflect > this but this seem to be normally only when there is another reason to > modify the entry. > > I hope that's clearer. > > Regards > Robert > > On 04/12/13 02:24, Andy Street wrote: > > On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 + > > Jonathan wrote: > > > >> Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire > >> where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. > >> However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use > >> official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey > >> also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public > >> Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other > >> side. > >> > >> Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland > >> highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official > >> PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the > >> case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their > >> copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing. > > > > Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a > > later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path, > > access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either > > permissive or private. > > > > If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider > > submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping > > fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too. > > > > ___ > 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Another approach which I've taken is to use "suspected=orpa" (orpa = "Other route with public access", otherwise known as "green lane" or former road which has degraded into a path due to lack of motor use). This is when something "looks" like a right of way, particularly a byway (e.g. continuous path, hedges either side, evidence of horse use) but isn't signposted or in the HCC data. The "suspected" indicates that there's no documentary evidence but it "probably is" an ORPA. Some counties actually indicate these with "Unclassified County Road" signs, but not Hampshire. Nick -wintonian wrote: - To: Kevin Peat , Robert Norris , "talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" From: wintonian Date: 04/12/2013 08:31AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data Now that seem quite logical to me, thanks for the suggestion. Regards Robert Kevin Peat wrote: > > >I have mapped many of these green lanes in Devon and tagged them as: > > highway=track > designation=unclassified_highway > >They were discussed in the past on the list. You sometimes see them >signed as "unmetalled roads" and they appear to have the same legal >access rights as normal public roads. > >Kevin > > > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3. ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Hi, Firstly Apologies for the top posting - it's the limitation of the mail client. Re the HCC data I have had this communication from Dan at HCC. "Hi Nick, I have been in comms with my contact at OS and the feedback I have had is that ODBL and OS Open Licence can work together. As long as there is still attribution to OS with the data in an ODBL database then all should be fine and that “Anyone using data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence is obliged to ensure that its terms are met” This was not their legal teams response but thought it may help, direct contact with their legal is recommended when trying to sort something out for sure. Dan" So it looks like it can be used, but attribution to OS has to be included; this would, I guess (but IANAL) be covered by mentioning the OS in the "source" tag. In terms of actually adding the data to OSM, I would resist wholesale, automated copying the data for the following reasons: a) the way might already be in OSM b) the course of the way in the HCC data might diverge from what's on the ground. It's better to do a ground survey to get an accurate course. Also a ground survey means that surface tags, etc, can be recorded. Actually I would avoid copying even ways which are not surveyed yet from HCC to OSM. The problem would be, that there is no easy way to see from the rendered OSM map which paths have come from HCC and therefore need to be refined with a ground survey, from those which have had a ground survey already. Also, speaking for myself I am more likely to want to survey something which is completely missing from OSM. Other people might feel differently on this last point. However, I would say that the HCC data is very useful (as long as we can use it legally) for a large number of purposes including: - adding designation tags - finding ways which might not be waymarked on the ground - confirming that a path is indeed a right of way when this is ambiguous - confirming the course of a right of way when this is ambiguous (path splits with the two branches going round opposite sides of a field, for instance) - pinpointing new paths to be surveyed - adding right of way references. In terms of actual coverage, we've got a lot of the county's footpaths in OSM already. The following areas are still missing quite a few: - Areas generally to the north and east of Basingstoke, and east of the A339/north of the A31 north-east of Alton - the far west of the county, Fordingbridge/Martin sort of area - a few paths still missing in the vicinity of Bordon though this area is gradually getting complete The southern parts of the county and the central area in the Winchester/Alton/Basingstoke/Andover quadrangle are more or less complete. Nick -wintonian wrote: - To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org From: wintonian Date: 03/12/2013 02:56AM Subject: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data Hello all, Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). I wish to use it to set the designation for 'rights of way' and for creating the relevant 'ways' where they do not already exist in OSM, unless there is a simple way to just import the data? Regards, wintonian ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Now that seem quite logical to me, thanks for the suggestion. Regards Robert Kevin Peat wrote: > > >I have mapped many of these green lanes in Devon and tagged them as: > > highway=track > designation=unclassified_highway > >They were discussed in the past on the list. You sometimes see them >signed as "unmetalled roads" and they appear to have the same legal >access rights as normal public roads. > >Kevin > > > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Robert Norris wrote: > >Case in point (green dots on OS Explorer, sort of track on NPE, nothing >in OS Streetview, perfectly good track for 4x4s (maybe even cars - >memory is fuzzy now) & mountain bikes). >Something I've mapped (Potlatch2 claims AndyS has modified it - but >then I've never quite understood Potlatch2's change list compared to >one from the OSM website). >I don't think it was marked as a Byway hence I did not mark it as such >but feels like one (presumably the reasons for the additions Sailor >Steve has made). > >http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41984943/history > >'Hampshire's maintained highways list' >Are you referring to >http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highway-factsheets/maintained-roads.htm >? Or something else? > >However it's hard to search for unamed/unknown ways, such as the above. >... I have mapped many of these green lanes in Devon and tagged them as: highway=track designation=unclassified_highway They were discussed in the past on the list. You sometimes see them signed as "unmetalled roads" and they appear to have the same legal access rights as normal public roads. Kevin___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013 00:35:30 + Robert Norris wrote: > >> Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit > >> mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex > >> speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor > >> are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where > >> the designation of care lies with these or the legality of using > >> them (especially in terms of Cycling). > > > > Public roads? Around here there are a number of unmetalled tracks > > that appear in Hampshire's maintained highways list and are drawn > > on an OS Explorer map as green dots. > > > > Case in point (green dots on OS Explorer, sort of track on NPE, > nothing in OS Streetview, perfectly good track for 4x4s (maybe even > cars - memory is fuzzy now) & mountain bikes). Something I've mapped > (Potlatch2 claims AndyS has modified it - but then I've never quite > understood Potlatch2's change list compared to one from the OSM > website). I don't think it was marked as a Byway hence I did not mark > it as such but feels like one (presumably the reasons for the > additions Sailor Steve has made). > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41984943/history I'm not 100% but I think that is T183 Chalk Hill (sourced from HCC's website so probably not a OSM compatible licence). > 'Hampshire's maintained highways list' > Are you referring to > http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highway-factsheets/maintained-roads.htm ? > Or something else? Yes that is the list I was referring to. > However it's hard to search for unamed/unknown ways, such as the > above. And seems to be getting harder as it no longer returns an OSGB grid reference for the start and end of each road. :( -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Really what I meant was where the is a RoW (as evidenced by the definitive map) but the actual line that is used has moved over time, perhaps to avoid a fallen tree or an area that has become wet and boggy over the years or otherwise more difficult to traverse than the new line. Therefore what happens is that that actual line used becomes different to the legal line, sometimes the definitive map is updated to reflect this but this seem to be normally only when there is another reason to modify the entry. I hope that's clearer. Regards Robert On 04/12/13 02:24, Andy Street wrote: On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 + Jonathan wrote: Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other side. Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing. Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path, access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either permissive or private. If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 22:00:20 + Jonathan wrote: > Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire > where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. > However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use > official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey > also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public > Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other > side. > > Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland > highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official > PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the > case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their > copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing. Map what you know, leave whatever remains for other people or a later date. If you know they are trespassing then it's highway=path, access=private, otherwise just add highway=path as it could be either permissive or private. If you are unable to follow a PRoW on the ground then please consider submitting a fault report to the council. Not only will you be helping fellow mappers who follow in your footsteps but other path users too. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
> A quick comparison of HCC's numbers with the latest Geofabrik > Hampshire extract yields the following: > > 51% designation=public_footpath > 60% designation=public_bridleway > 58% designation=restricted_byway > 111% designation=byway,public_byway,byway_open_to_all_traffic Nice - thanks for the stats update. > The OSM extract includes the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton > as well as bits of other counties near the border but it's probably > good enough to get a feel for current progress. > >> Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit >> mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex >> speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor >> are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the >> designation of care lies with these or the legality of using them >> (especially in terms of Cycling). > > Public roads? Around here there are a number of unmetalled tracks that > appear in Hampshire's maintained highways list and are drawn on an OS > Explorer map as green dots. > Case in point (green dots on OS Explorer, sort of track on NPE, nothing in OS Streetview, perfectly good track for 4x4s (maybe even cars - memory is fuzzy now) & mountain bikes). Something I've mapped (Potlatch2 claims AndyS has modified it - but then I've never quite understood Potlatch2's change list compared to one from the OSM website). I don't think it was marked as a Byway hence I did not mark it as such but feels like one (presumably the reasons for the additions Sailor Steve has made). http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/41984943/history 'Hampshire's maintained highways list' Are you referring to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highway-factsheets/maintained-roads.htm ? Or something else? However it's hard to search for unamed/unknown ways, such as the above. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 21:36:03 + Robert Norris wrote: > An interesting question is how much? (Compared to the Hants CC). > > There is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hampshire/Rights_of_Way > but that was last updated over 2 years ago :( I used to update page manually each month but lost interest during the whole licence change saga. :( > I suspect in terms of raw highways it's mapped>98%. > In terms of designation these are quite well tagged, I can only > hazard a guess maybe as much as 66%. A quick comparison of HCC's numbers with the latest Geofabrik Hampshire extract yields the following: 51% designation=public_footpath 60% designation=public_bridleway 58% designation=restricted_byway 111% designation=byway,public_byway,byway_open_to_all_traffic The OSM extract includes the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton as well as bits of other counties near the border but it's probably good enough to get a feel for current progress. > Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit > mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex > speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor > are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the > designation of care lies with these or the legality of using them > (especially in terms of Cycling). Public roads? Around here there are a number of unmetalled tracks that appear in Hampshire's maintained highways list and are drawn on an OS Explorer map as green dots. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
This was one of the other things I was wondering about.
If we are mapping what is actually on the ground (which would seem to be
the sensible approach) and then assigning the relevant legal status to
the feature i.e. a footpath/ bridleway etc. in this case and the legal
line RoW is diffident to that which is currently used then are we not
implying that it's OK to trespass on this path, which is effectively
what is happening by using it?
I'm not to worried about law suits as we could just 'copy' is OS and use
a disclaimer ("the representation of [...] is no evidence of..."), I
mean if it works for them... But I will admit it may be a valid concern.
as for waymarks and fingerprints pointing a different way they are
(according to HCC at least) supposed to point in the direction of the
legal RoW and where it looks like people go. However from my experience
I don't think they always take a copy of the definitive map with them
when they go out on such a task - "Oh look it seems people have been
walking around the field edge, I doubt the nice farmer would illegally
plough their field and not restore it being the such welcoming fellows
they are." - Hmm.
As for importing the data I know most of the RoW's are in OSM so I was
really just thinking about assigning the correct designation to the
existing ways and filling in the gaps where they exist (or perhaps I
should say don't exist).
Lastly I am unclear as to what we do when we come to what I call
unspecified rights of way, that is those shown on the OS Explorer series
with green dots, which donate routes that are accepted (by the highway
authority) as being rights of way but no-one knows exactly what those
rights are. These are not shown on definitive maps but the OS obtains
the data from the highway authority. I must confess I am a little
unclear as to the whole concept of a RoW known about not being on the
definitive map.
Regards
Robert
On 03/12/13 22:00, Jonathan wrote:
Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire where
permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. However,
what is the advice in a situation where you can't use official PRoW
data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey also shows a
clear path across the field but the signs show a Public Footpath along
the edge into another field and rejoining on the other side.
Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland highway=path
tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official PRoW. Further more,
if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the case), do we just leave
it blank, even though the CC show it on their copyright map or again
show a highway=path marking the tresspassing.
While we may worry about using copyright material, paid for by British
taxpayers I might add, I think OSMF could face quite a hefty lawsuit if
we were to indicate a PRoW across private land on the back of "we
surveyed it with GPS and everyone else is walking that way so that's why
we mapped it"?
Jonathan
http://bigfatfrog67.me
On 03/12/2013 19:32, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Hi,
The Hants data was one of the first Rights of Way datasets that we got
access to. It is my understanding that we did get the permission for
using this OS OpenData licensed data above and beyond what the OS
OpenData license says (we have permission from both OS and Hants CC).
Having said this, it is worth speaking with the local community as
they will be best suited to advise on how the data is being
integrated. For example, Nick Whitelegg (nickw) should be able to
confirm whether they are incorporating the designation type (footpath,
bridleway, etc) if a way already exists in OSM without needing a
survey. I would imagine they are doing a ground survey when they find
a way that is not yet in OSM as a straight import might not reflect
what is on the ground.
Best wishes,
Rob
___
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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Can someone clarify the situation for me. I'm in Worcestershire where permission was previously sought to use the Worcs CC PRoW. However, what is the advice in a situation where you can't use official PRoW data, Bing shows a path across a field, a ground survey also shows a clear path across the field but the signs show a Public Footpath along the edge into another field and rejoining on the other side. Do we map where people are trespassing, maybe with a bland highway=path tag and source=bing;survey or just map the official PRoW. Further more, if there are no clear signs somewhere (often the case), do we just leave it blank, even though the CC show it on their copyright map or again show a highway=path marking the tresspassing. While we may worry about using copyright material, paid for by British taxpayers I might add, I think OSMF could face quite a hefty lawsuit if we were to indicate a PRoW across private land on the back of "we surveyed it with GPS and everyone else is walking that way so that's why we mapped it"? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 03/12/2013 19:32, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi, The Hants data was one of the first Rights of Way datasets that we got access to. It is my understanding that we did get the permission for using this OS OpenData licensed data above and beyond what the OS OpenData license says (we have permission from both OS and Hants CC). Having said this, it is worth speaking with the local community as they will be best suited to advise on how the data is being integrated. For example, Nick Whitelegg (nickw) should be able to confirm whether they are incorporating the designation type (footpath, bridleway, etc) if a way already exists in OSM without needing a survey. I would imagine they are doing a ground survey when they find a way that is not yet in OSM as a straight import might not reflect what is on the ground. Best wishes, Rob ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Given the efforts of AndyS, NickW, myself and many others - most of Hampshire is very well mapped. An interesting question is how much? (Compared to the Hants CC). There is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hampshire/Rights_of_Way but that was last updated over 2 years ago :( I suspect in terms of raw highways it's mapped>98%. In terms of designation these are quite well tagged, I can only hazard a guess maybe as much as 66%. Some of the 'Green Lanes' (ex Roads Used as Public Path?) are a bit mysterious - (seemed to be called 'Public Ways' in West Sussex speak). These don't seem appear in OS Locator or OS Streetview, nor are they covered by the ROW datasets. It's not clear to me where the designation of care lies with these or the legality of using them (especially in terms of Cycling). I suspect several of the remaining ROWs for Hampshire not in OSM are either limited use ones (ways that don't go anywhere useful so no-ones mapped it) or not very visible for some reason. > With all this importing going on it's worthwhile remembering the > basics. If a footpath has been surveyed it'll have at least one gpx IHMO 'at least' -> 'might have a'. As I very rarely upload my GPX tracks. Normally I visually compare Hants KML (and indeed West Sussex) vs OSM tile images to identify missing ROWs and then make that a basis to include in a route for a days out walking or cycling. -- Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
With all this importing going on it's worthwhile remembering the basics. If a footpath has been surveyed it'll have at least one gpx track. If the gpx looks reliable it's probably the best indication of where the footpath goes. Rgds, Vic On 03/12/13 19:32, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi, The Hants data was one of the first Rights of Way datasets that we got access to. It is my understanding that we did get the permission for using this OS OpenData licensed data above and beyond what the OS OpenData license says (we have permission from both OS and Hants CC). Having said this, it is worth speaking with the local community as they will be best suited to advise on how the data is being integrated. For example, Nick Whitelegg (nickw) should be able to confirm whether they are incorporating the designation type (footpath, bridleway, etc) if a way already exists in OSM without needing a survey. I would imagine they are doing a ground survey when they find a way that is not yet in OSM as a straight import might not reflect what is on the ground. Best wishes, Rob ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Hi, The Hants data was one of the first Rights of Way datasets that we got access to. It is my understanding that we did get the permission for using this OS OpenData licensed data above and beyond what the OS OpenData license says (we have permission from both OS and Hants CC). Having said this, it is worth speaking with the local community as they will be best suited to advise on how the data is being integrated. For example, Nick Whitelegg (nickw) should be able to confirm whether they are incorporating the designation type (footpath, bridleway, etc) if a way already exists in OSM without needing a survey. I would imagine they are doing a ground survey when they find a way that is not yet in OSM as a straight import might not reflect what is on the ground. Best wishes, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Thanks for the input all, I'll reply more fully later when I have time but for now I'll just say this. 1, I had considered the potential contradictions of definitive map, dataset and usage but had not yet tackled the question. Interestingly I know of a recent case where the on-line maps at HCC (and dataset) ave been updated before the definitive map has been so it can does work both ways there! 2, I had not noticed the OS involvement in the licence. 3, Good point about the definitive statements - they are of-course releasable (or rather would be if they did not form part of a publication scheme) under the FOI so I would be surprised to find objection to the release under a suitable licence. 4, I guess one can still use the definitive maps/ statements to determine the 'designation' i.e. legal status of the RoW - after all when we tag a way with a value of 'designated' in respect of usage on foot or horse back for example we are referring to its legal status and not private rights or misuse etc. - Have I got that right? 5, I have noticed that other datasets from LA's under the OGL have been used, but then I haven't check to see if the OS stuff has been appended to it. Shame this isn't Wikipedia as I think we would have a reasonable argument for utilising US copyright laws with respect to phone books etc. Regards On 03/12/13 11:17, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 3 December 2013 02:51, wintonian wrote: Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). Data released under the "Open Government Licence" would be fine to use in OSM. However, according to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm the RoW GIS data is actually released under the "Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence". This licence is slightly difference, and problematic as far as OSM is concerned. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for a full discussion. The short answer is that we can't use OS OpenData licensed material (or derivativ3e works thereof) without separate permission from the rights holders. It's possible someone may have got that permission for the Hampshire data from Hampshire CC and OS though. See what's written at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils -- but I'd check with whoever added that comment that it can be relied upon first. (OS have been rather inconsistent in the past in their statements about whether their OS OpenData Licence is compatible with the ODbL that OSM uses.) It looks like the edit where it was added was http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=UK_local_councils&diff=782218&oldid=782215 . As far as Public Rights of Way in general are concerned, another source of information (which OS doesn't claim any rights in) is the written "Definitive Statement" that each council also has to maintain. Since the data in the statements is owned entirely by the councils, they are free to release it under a suitable licence (e.g. the OGL) for use in OSM. For more information and advice, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html . The Hampshire Definitive Statements are online, but I don't know if they've been released under a suitable licence. Hope that helps, Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On 3 December 2013 02:51, wintonian wrote: > Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm > )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( > http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). Data released under the "Open Government Licence" would be fine to use in OSM. However, according to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm the RoW GIS data is actually released under the "Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence". This licence is slightly difference, and problematic as far as OSM is concerned. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for a full discussion. The short answer is that we can't use OS OpenData licensed material (or derivativ3e works thereof) without separate permission from the rights holders. It's possible someone may have got that permission for the Hampshire data from Hampshire CC and OS though. See what's written at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils -- but I'd check with whoever added that comment that it can be relied upon first. (OS have been rather inconsistent in the past in their statements about whether their OS OpenData Licence is compatible with the ODbL that OSM uses.) It looks like the edit where it was added was http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=UK_local_councils&diff=782218&oldid=782215 . As far as Public Rights of Way in general are concerned, another source of information (which OS doesn't claim any rights in) is the written "Definitive Statement" that each council also has to maintain. Since the data in the statements is owned entirely by the councils, they are free to release it under a suitable licence (e.g. the OGL) for use in OSM. For more information and advice, see http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.html . The Hampshire Definitive Statements are online, but I don't know if they've been released under a suitable licence. Hope that helps, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, wintonian wrote: Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). I wish to use it to set the designation for 'rights of way' and for creating the relevant 'ways' where they do not already exist in OSM, unless there is a simple way to just import the data? I lurk on this mailing list and I do not contribute to OSM. So this message may not contain the consensus of OSM contributors. Having said that, I think you should not just import the data from a local authority's dataset into OSM. Let me explain why. For each public right of way (PROW), there are three routes for the PROW: (a) what is shown on the local authority's Definitive Map; (b) the route in the dataset released by the local authority; (c) what happens on the ground. All of these may be different. So a dataset available on the web may be out-of-date because the Definitive Map has recently been modified and the web's dataset has not yet been updated. And on the ground people may go a different way for any number of reasons, e.g., some property has been built on the dataset's route or the dataset's route is overgrown, obstructed, more difficult, ... . Of these only (a) is appropriate for legal purposes. My understanding of OSM is that you should be mapping what appears on the ground, i.e. (c). So I think it is inappropriate to copy a local authority's dataset into OSM. Instead I think that, if you wish to use that dataset, then adopt the following process: look at the dataset, see what PROWs are missing/different in OSM, go out and do a ground survey for each PROW and then use your data to update OSM. You have mentioned Hampshire. They were the first local authority to release their dataset with an Open licence. I'm aware of 8 other local authorities that provide a web page that allows you to download their dataset. They are Bolton, Devon, East Sussex, Norfolk, North York Moors National Park, City of Nottingham, Oxfordshire and Surrey. You can see this if you visit the web pages: http://www.bolton.gov.uk/website/pages/Definitivemapandstatementofpublicrightsofway.aspx http://gis.devon.gov.uk/basedata/download.htm http://data.gov.uk/dataset/eastsussexrightsofway http://data.gov.uk/dataset/norfolk-public-rights-of-way 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 http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/environment-housing-and-planning/countryside/explore-surreys-countryside/visit-the-countryside/footpaths-byways-and-bridleways/find-out-about-rights-of-way/public-rights-of-way-open-data As well as the above 9 local authorities, my web site: http://www.rowmaps.com currently provides access to the datasets for another 60 local authorities. These datasets have been obtained from the local authority by individuals. Each dataset has been released with an Open licence. My understanding is that some people have argued that, if a local authority has released its dataset on terms equivalent to the Ordnance Survey Opendata Licence, then OSM's licensing does not permit you to copy the data of that dataset. However, I think the licensing issue is irrelevant because, for the reasons given above, I think you have to provide your own data. -- Barry Cornelius http://www.rowmaps.com/ http://www.oxonpaths.com/ http://www.thehs2.com/ http://www.northeastraces.com/ http://www.barrycornelius.com/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Hi Wintonian, As long as you use the shapefile or KML and manipulate the data itself, then there wont be a problem. However, the Hants online map uses OS data which is crown copyright, and has data which has not been released under OpenData, so you can't use copy the data from that. Jason (UniEagle) -Original Message- From: wintonian Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 2:51 AM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data Hello all, Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). I wish to use it to set the designation for 'rights of way' and for creating the relevant 'ways' where they do not already exist in OSM, unless there is a simple way to just import the data? Regards, wintonian ___ 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] Hants CC - Open Government Licence & use of data
Hello all, Can use this data from Hants CC ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm )? It has been released under the 'Open Goverment License' ( http://www3.hants.gov.uk/opendata/licence.htm ). I wish to use it to set the designation for 'rights of way' and for creating the relevant 'ways' where they do not already exist in OSM, unless there is a simple way to just import the data? Regards, wintonian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
