Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
On 23 March 2011 12:47, Richard Mann wrote: >> Can't speak for all authorities, but mine issue such data on top of OS maps. >> There's been a lot of talk, & I believe the consensus was that the OS map >> 'contaminated' the data & was not usable. > > OS have said they don't claim copyright in such instances IIRC. Does > someone have a link? The only case of this that I'm aware of is the specific case of the "Definitive Statement" -- a legal text document listing public rights of way with route descriptions -- that must be prepared by each county council. OS have stated that they don't claim any IP rights in those: http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2010/04/os-opendata-goes-live/comment-page-1/#comment-536 This is important since the "Definitive Statement" is prepared in conjunction with a "Definitive Map", which is -- you've guessed it -- a set of lines drawn on top of an OS map. It's therefore possible that the description of the route and any grid references it contains contains would be at least partly derived from the OS map. This OS waiver wouldn't apply to the "List of Streets" held by a local authority. However, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use the content of an email from a local authority telling us that such and such a road/track that we enquired about, is a public highway with reference number U1234. Provided the description of the route of the road has come from us, and not from an OS map, I'd have thought we should be fine. The status of the route is a fact after all. Though maybe others will be more cautious over this. Maybe we should ask OS, just to be sure. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
On 23/03/2011 12:37, Dave F. wrote: Most of the OPRA I know of lead onto paths/bridleways etc & are signed as such at the beginning of the OPRAs. If it's not obvious along the length of a path what its designation is, or the designations in use are just silly*, then I'll usually tag a source:designation. I guess that it would make sense to do this for ORPAs where there isn't a sign on the ground. If there isn't a sign, and there's no other source for access other than "but it's obvious that you can walk/ride along it" that's not really a designation, is it? I'd usually stick a note on explaining why e.g. foot=permissive or foot=yes is correct. Cheers, Andy * Like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.80862&lon=-0.5763&zoom=15&layers=M that goes "bridleway -> footpath -> bridleway -> restricted byway" from SW to NE. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Dave F. wrote: > Right, we're agreed that that were copied from printed OS maps, which is > banned in OSM. No. The term is copied from OS. What it applies to is not necessarily copied from OS. I don't think copying "Other Road with Public Access" goes much beyond calling a spade a spade. > > Can't speak for all authorities, but mine issue such data on top of OS maps. > There's been a lot of talk, & I believe the consensus was that the OS map > 'contaminated' the data & was not usable. > OS have said they don't claim copyright in such instances IIRC. Does someone have a link? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
On 23/03/2011 12:15, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 23 March 2011 11:18, Dave F. wrote: I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other Route with Public Access (or just ORPA) I've never seen a route signed with this on the ground or in the OS Opendata set, only on OS printed maps. If this is the case I believe it's illegal mapping& should be removed. Is this correct or have I missed something? As far as I know, "ORPA" is a term invented by Ordnance survey to describe and mark some unclassified roads that might otherwise appear to be private tracks on their maps. These are routes that aren't one of the designated public rights of way (footpath, bridleway, byway, restricted byway), but are a public highway or some sort, so you have the right to use them. These will not be signed as "ORPA" on the ground, and I guess the only way you could know the specific "ORPA" status is by looking at the OS map. Hence I guess we shouldn't really have these in our data. As for how to (legally) tag the rights on these routes, you can follow the instructions on the OS map key, and ask your local Highways Authority what the status of the route is. The Highways Authority maintains a "List of Streets" which will probably include the route as an "unclassified highway" with a reference number. For tagging suggestions, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Designation#Other_Roads_with_Public_Access_.28ORPAs.29 If we are to remove the designation=ORPA tags, it might be useful to replace them with a fixme="check legal status to route with highways authority" (assuming we're allowed to do this). Right, we're agreed that that were copied from printed OS maps, which is banned in OSM. Can't speak for all authorities, but mine issue such data on top of OS maps. There's been a lot of talk, & I believe the consensus was that the OS map 'contaminated' the data & was not usable. As for tagging, use what you see on the ground. Most of the OPRA I know of lead onto paths/bridleways etc & are signed as such at the beginning of the OPRAs. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
>As far as I know, "ORPA" is a term invented by Ordnance survey to >describe and mark some unclassified roads that might otherwise appear >to be private tracks on their maps. These are routes that aren't one >of the designated public rights of way (footpath, bridleway, byway, >restricted byway), but are a public highway or some sort, so you have >the right to use them. These will not be signed as "ORPA" on the >ground, and I guess the only way you could know the specific "ORPA" >status is by looking at the OS map. Hence I guess we shouldn't really >have these in our data. There is plenty of implicit evidence that something is an "ORPA" though without looking at an OS map. Typical diagnosis is an unsigned, byway like way, typically with high hedges like a lane, and typically with footpaths branching off it, as in a lane. Also evidence of public use e.g. footprints, hoof prints, other walkers. There are a good number of such ways near me that I could confidently classify as such without looking at an OS map, though to date I've generally just tagged them as highway=track, or highway=byway. TBH, in the interest of making our maps useful, I would recommend tagging with "ORPA" in such cases (but obviously I wouldn't advocate copying from an OS map!) source=common_sense, or source=30_years_of_walking_in_the_UK_countryside would be adequate. When you've been walking a long time you get to recognise these things. If we mis-diagnose, the landowner, or whoever, can always remove the tag and retag with access=private; I have taken such steps with incorrectly tagged private tracks in the past myself. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
On 23 March 2011 11:18, Dave F. wrote: > I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other Route > with Public Access (or just ORPA) > > I've never seen a route signed with this on the ground or in the OS Opendata > set, only on OS printed maps. > > If this is the case I believe it's illegal mapping & should be removed. Is > this correct or have I missed something? As far as I know, "ORPA" is a term invented by Ordnance survey to describe and mark some unclassified roads that might otherwise appear to be private tracks on their maps. These are routes that aren't one of the designated public rights of way (footpath, bridleway, byway, restricted byway), but are a public highway or some sort, so you have the right to use them. These will not be signed as "ORPA" on the ground, and I guess the only way you could know the specific "ORPA" status is by looking at the OS map. Hence I guess we shouldn't really have these in our data. (You'll see I've edited a few of these, but only to change the tagging from various variants to a standard designation=ORPA -- so at least we're consistent.) As for how to (legally) tag the rights on these routes, you can follow the instructions on the OS map key, and ask your local Highways Authority what the status of the route is. The Highways Authority maintains a "List of Streets" which will probably include the route as an "unclassified highway" with a reference number. For tagging suggestions, see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Designation#Other_Roads_with_Public_Access_.28ORPAs.29 If we are to remove the designation=ORPA tags, it might be useful to replace them with a fixme="check legal status to route with highways authority" (assuming we're allowed to do this). Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
You can find out from the same place that OS finds out - the Local Authority. I don't think they're generally signed (any more than any other minor public road), it's just that they're passable, there's no "Private Keep Out" signs, and the Highways team has a note that they've got responsibility for them (not that they'll actually do anything to them if they can help it). Richard On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:46 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: > On 23/03/2011 11:18, Dave F. wrote: > > Hi > > I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other Route > with Public Access (or just ORPA) > > > I've never heard of that as a legal designation (of an England / Wales right > of way) or seen such a sign. If I saw it on a way in OSM I'd just interpret > it as "not designated". According to the JXAPI, there are none near me, so > I'm not likely to encounter one. > > FWIW GB "tagwatch" reckons 11 "Other Route with Public Access" and 46 > "ORPA". Is it just just one or two mappers? If so, I'd ask them what they > meant. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
On 23/03/2011 11:18, Dave F. wrote: Hi I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other Route with Public Access (or just ORPA) I've never heard of that as a legal designation (of an England / Wales right of way) or seen such a sign. If I saw it on a way in OSM I'd just interpret it as "not designated". According to the JXAPI, there are none near me, so I'm not likely to encounter one. FWIW GB "tagwatch" reckons 11 "**Other Route with Public Access**" and 46 "**ORPA**". Is it just just one or two mappers? If so, I'd ask them what they meant. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Other Route with Public Access (ORPA)
Hi I've noticed a couple few ways being tagged with designation= Other Route with Public Access (or just ORPA) I've never seen a route signed with this on the ground or in the OS Opendata set, only on OS printed maps. If this is the case I believe it's illegal mapping & should be removed. Is this correct or have I missed something? Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
