Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
On 12 May 2017 at 12:08, Adam Snape wrote: > I would be interested to add rights of way information closer to home > (Lancashire). I'm currently figuring out how best to make my tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ scale to be able to include many more council areas, and be able to be kept up to date with as little manual effort as possible. I'm not completely there yet, but I'm getting close. I'm certainly willing to add more areas if people express an interest, provided the data is available, in a suitable format, and suitably licensed for use in OSM. For the format, my preferred option is to make use of the standard format available from http://www.rowmaps.com/ as that saves me having to parse different formats from each council. So the first thing is that the data needs to be in rowmaps. (There's one slight glitch that I need to know which district each parish is in, which isn't always available in the file, but I can probably work around this if/when necessary.) As for the licence, it needs to be compatible with OSM, which probably means it being the Open Government Licence (OGL) -- see also below. > Dave refers to the long list of other councils that have released row > information. Is this the rowmaps website or is it somewhere on osm that I'm > missing? There's a list in the OSM wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_councils , although it's not necessarily up to date. > The information on rowmaps is not clear. Is all of the data on there > compatible with osm? That's a matter of opinion in some cases. Originally Ordnance Survey only let councils release the data under their own custom OS OpenData Licence. This wasn't quite compatible with OSM's ODbL licence. Although OS gave us special permission to make make use of their own OpenData in OSM, this didn't/couldn't extend to data licensed by third parties under the OS OpenData Licence. The good news is that OS have retired their custom licence, and now release their own data under the plain Open Government Licnce (which is OSM-compatible). They also allow/encourage Councils to release their own derived data (including Right of Way) under the OGL too. What is slightly less clear though is the status of data previously released by third parties under the OS OpenData Licence. OS say that as far as they're concerned anything where they mandated the OS OpenData Licence can now be released under the OGL. But I don't think that automatically makes third-party data re-usable under the OGL -- the third party who owns the data would have to explicitly agree to the re-licensing. You'll see that some of the data on RoW Maps is explicitly under the OGL, and some (including Lancashire at http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/LA/ ) was originally OS OpenData Licence but includes the statement about OS changing to OGL. (There may be other options for licences too, but I haven't seen any.) I'd like to play it safe, and only promote the use of those datasets for mapping where I am certain that they're ok for use in OSM. So I'd therefore like to have an explicit statement from the Council that their data can be re-used under the OGL before I add it to my tool. So if you want to see the data for Lancashire in my tool, the main hurdle to overcome is to get explicit permission from the council to use their PRoW GIS data under the OGL. If you're willing to try to get that agreed, then that would be great. Some sort of public statement and publicly available download link for the shapefile/KML/mapinfo file would be best if they are amenable. A public request on WhatDoTheyKnow would also be fine, as would be getting them to add the data and a licence statement to https://data.gov.uk/ . Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
It's interesting to compare their approach with that of the capital of what used to be one of the most closed countries: the Municipality of Tirana (Albania) is now putting (some of) its data online voluntarily, in co-operation with the local hackerspace. http://opendata.tirana.al/ They haven't seen the need to provide an English translation of the pages, but many of the subject area titles are guessable without knowledge of Albanian, and Google Translate knows Albanian. I've been working with the Tirana hackerspace in mapping parts of the country, and when I commented it would be nice to get plans of the underground Cold War bunker complex that now houses the exhibition "Bunkart", one phone call was enough to arrange access to the data (not yet processed, though). On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dave F wrote: > Great Scott! Like wading through treacle. I admire your perseverance. > > Did you ever get a reason as to why they were being so restrictive? Empire > building? 'Knowledge is power?' > > After seeing the long list of other local authorities who had released > their data you'd have thought they would realise they were being a bit > siliy. > > Not only time, but /so/ much money wasted. > > Dave F. > > > On 11/05/2017 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > >> After a rather long battle... >> > > > ___ > 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] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
On 11 May 2017 at 20:24, John Aldridge wrote: > One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths > often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their > reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry for a > single parish at a time, meaning that tracking the prow_ref value for the > full length of a single path can take a lot of navigation within your tool. > > Would it be hard to display geometry for all ROWs overlapping the current > slippy map extent, whichever parish they are from? Yes, it can be a bit annoying to move from one parish to the next. The way I've got things set up at the moment (the Rights of Way for each parish is in a different file) it would be difficult to display rights of way over a wider area as you suggest. I see your point, although I'm not sure adding more would actually make things any easier, as you'd then be less likely to notice changes in RoW number across parish boundaries as the change-points don't always correspond to the modern boundaries. What I tend to do when I'm working with the tool is to do one parish at a time and just split the ways at the boundary and tag the half that's in the parish I'm working on. Then I will do the other half at some later stage, when I get round to doing the other parish. Not necessarily ideal, but it works reasonably well for me. I presume you've found that clicking on the slippy map in a neighbouring parish (within the same district) will bring up a popup with a link to that parish's page? This doesn't work across district and county boundaries, but is helpful for moving around the rest of the time. Robert. PS: Data for Hertfordshire is now available if anyone is interested: http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/herts/ -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
I would be interested to add rights of way information closer to home (Lancashire). Dave refers to the long list of other councils that have released row information. Is this the rowmaps website or is it somewhere on osm that I'm missing? The information on rowmaps is not clear. Is all of the data on there compatible with osm? Adam On 11 May 2017 8:25 p.m., "John Aldridge" wrote: > One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths > often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their > reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry for a > single parish at a time, meaning that tracking the prow_ref value for the > full length of a single path can take a lot of navigation within your tool. > > Would it be hard to display geometry for all ROWs overlapping the current > slippy map extent, whichever parish they are from? > > -- > Cheers, > John > > ___ > 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] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
One bit of feedback, from a first try at doing this for real: footpaths often cross parish boundaries, and at least in this area change their reference when they do so. But your slippy map only displays geometry for a single parish at a time, meaning that tracking the prow_ref value for the full length of a single path can take a lot of navigation within your tool. Would it be hard to display geometry for all ROWs overlapping the current slippy map extent, whichever parish they are from? -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
On 11 May 2017 at 08:04, John Aldridge wrote: > On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: >> The presence of prow_ref=* >> tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.) > > So what's the best way to fix this? > > If I click on your map, it shows me something like > > Teversham FP 3 > (MS: 0 | ΔL/L: —) > > which is a bit cryptic! Is the first line the prow_ref? Should I just copy > it from there? Yes, that's exactly right. If you add "prow_ref=Teversham FP 3" to a way in the parish, and also ensure it's tagged with designation=public_footpath, then the next time the data is refreshed it will be counted in the table at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/cambs/south-cambs/teversham/ . I've tried to add a bit more detail to the parish pages to make this clearer now. (For those who are interested, the second line in the popups contain the "Mapping Status" (a manual number from 0 to 5 describing how complete the mapping is thought to be) and the % discrepancy in the mapped length compared to the official length. Things may make more sense for a parish that's more complete, e.g. http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/norfolk/breckland/little-dunham/ ) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
Great Scott! Like wading through treacle. I admire your perseverance. Did you ever get a reason as to why they were being so restrictive? Empire building? 'Knowledge is power?' After seeing the long list of other local authorities who had released their data you'd have thought they would realise they were being a bit siliy. Not only time, but /so/ much money wasted. Dave F. On 11/05/2017 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: After a rather long battle... ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
On 11 May 2017 at 09:07, Dan S wrote: > Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational! To put it mildly! Well done Robert, not only on the outcome but also in keeping calm and civil during the protracted correspondence. My highlight of the saga is definitely sections 37 through 40 of the most recent ICO decision notice: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2017/2013892/fs50619465.pdf Overall I'm quite impressed with the ICO decision notices - they seem to cut through the confused attitudes of CCC. If only CCC would learn from these and stop trying to avoid publishing their data, it would save everyone a load of time. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
Congratulations Robert! The long thread of letters is... educational! Dan 2017-05-11 0:20 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) : > After a rather long battle with Cambridgeshire County Council over the > release and licensing of their Public Rights of Way GIS data, the ICO > ruled in my favour again last month, and the Council have now released > the data under the Open Government Licence. This means it's suitable > for use in OSM. :-) > > I've added the data to my Rights of Way comparison and progress > tracking tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . Thanks > to Barry Cornelius the data is also available in various formats from > his site http://www.rowmaps.com/ . (From the initial look that I've > had, it seems that the Cambridgeshire paths themselves are generally > quite well mapped in OSM, but the tagging with appropriate > designation=* and access tags is variable. The presence of prow_ref=* > tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.) > > For anyone who's interested, the correspondence in the FOI/EIR/RoPSI > requests can be read at > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data > and https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_use_request_for_public_rights_2 > . I also have a third request still in progress to try and get the > written Definitive Statements: > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/unhappy/definitive_statement_of_public_r > > 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] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
On 11-May-17 00:20, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: The presence of prow_ref=* tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.) So what's the best way to fix this? If I click on your map, it shows me something like Teversham FP 3 (MS: 0 | ΔL/L: —) which is a bit cryptic! Is the first line the prow_ref? Should I just copy it from there? -- Cheers, John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Public Rights of Way data for Cambridgeshire
After a rather long battle with Cambridgeshire County Council over the release and licensing of their Public Rights of Way GIS data, the ICO ruled in my favour again last month, and the Council have now released the data under the Open Government Licence. This means it's suitable for use in OSM. :-) I've added the data to my Rights of Way comparison and progress tracking tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . Thanks to Barry Cornelius the data is also available in various formats from his site http://www.rowmaps.com/ . (From the initial look that I've had, it seems that the Cambridgeshire paths themselves are generally quite well mapped in OSM, but the tagging with appropriate designation=* and access tags is variable. The presence of prow_ref=* tags to allow matching with official data is almost non-existent.) For anyone who's interested, the correspondence in the FOI/EIR/RoPSI requests can be read at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/public_rights_of_way_gis_data and https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_use_request_for_public_rights_2 . I also have a third request still in progress to try and get the written Definitive Statements: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/unhappy/definitive_statement_of_public_r Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
