Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive map edits

2016-03-16 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 16 March 2016 at 01:29, Dave F  wrote:
> On 15/03/2016 23:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>>   (Most of the datasets on http://www.rowmaps.com/ still say
>> they're under the old OS OpenData Licence.)
>
> If you click through on the opendata hyperlink it states it's OGLV3. At
> least on the ones I've checked.

On the ones I've seen, that's because OS have put a redirect on
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
to take people to
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
. Given that they don't own all the rights to the PRoW data, and
there's no upgrade clause in their OS-OpenData-Licence, I don't see
how they would have the power to unilaterally re-licence PRoW data
released by councils. So if the link text says "OS OpenData Licence" I
think we have to assume that that's the licence the data was released
under, regardless of where the link takes you now.

Of course, RoWMaps might be out of date, and the council might have
re-licensed their data now, but this would need to be checked.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive map edits

2016-03-15 Thread Dave F 

If you check the source tag he attempted to put the source as this:
http://map.n-somerset.gov.uk/publicrightsofway.html

Some believe this cannot be used in OSM as it's been overlaid on OS 
background map. I'm not convinced, but the point is moot as it is freely 
available in isolation & in various electronic formats as stated in 
previous posts.


However they're not that accurate & should really only be used as a 
guide for on the ground surveying & confirmation of their designation.


I couldn't see a changeset comment. Have you contacted him?

Dave F.


On 15/03/2016 18:57, Neil Matthews wrote:

Anyone know whether "definitive maps" are suitable as sources for OSM?

I'm seeing a lot of edits today by the same author that have comments 
about "the definitive map", e.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37850221


There are URLs for the source, but they don't seem to be valid?

Cheers,
Neil

___
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] Definitive map edits

2016-03-15 Thread Dave F 


On 15/03/2016 23:27, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

  (Most of the datasets on http://www.rowmaps.com/ still say
they're under the old OS OpenData Licence.)


If you click through on the opendata hyperlink it states it's OGLV3. At 
least on the ones I've checked.


Dave F..

---
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] Definitive map edits

2016-03-15 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 15 March 2016 at 18:57, Neil Matthews  wrote:
> Anyone know whether "definitive maps" are suitable as sources for OSM?

The actual "Definitive Map" will almost certainly be a paper printout
of an OS map with Rights of Way drawn on top of it. OS's copyright
applies to this, and it's not something that they're likely to give
anyone permission to re-use.

However, most councils have in recent times created a digitised
version of the Rights of Way routes from their definitive map. They'll
use this for internal purposes and possibly display the routes on
their website on top of an OS base map. The OS base-map will still be
owned by OS, so we wouldn't be able to directly use the online maps.
(So it's misleading for them to be listed in the OSM wiki.) However,
OS are happy for council's to release the raw GIS data for the routes
under an open licence -- which we're then able to use if we display
them in OSM directly or on top of a base map we do have permission to
use.

Originally, the licence mandated by OS for the data was their own "OS
OpenData Licence" -- this was problematic for OSM use because of its
additional attribution clause. OS has now abandoned its separate
licence and allows councils to release the data under the standard
Open Government Licence v3 -- which is ok for use in OSM.
Unfortunately, OS hasn't done much to publicise the licence change,
and many councils still have their data under the old OS OpenData
Licence. (Most of the datasets on http://www.rowmaps.com/ still say
they're under the old OS OpenData Licence.)

So if you have the Rights of Way data in the form of a GIS file, AND
you have permission from the council to use it under the Open
Government Licence, AND you only display the data in an OSM editor or
on top of a base map we can make use of, then it's ok.

The only two such datasets I'm aware of are for Norfolk and Suffolk,
where I had to specifically ask the councils to update their licences.
I've started work on a tool to help display and compare the council
data with Rights of Way in OSM at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . Hopefully there will be
more datasets under the OGL that can be added soon.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive map edits

2016-03-15 Thread SK53 
Just noticed that these edits dont seem to be using the designation tag.

When adding public rights of way do please add a designation tag. This
helps massively with determining where to expend footpath surveying effort.

Jerry

On 15 March 2016 at 18:57, Neil Matthews  wrote:

> Anyone know whether "definitive maps" are suitable as sources for OSM?
>
> I'm seeing a lot of edits today by the same author that have comments
> about "the definitive map", e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37850221
>
> There are URLs for the source, but they don't seem to be valid?
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> ___
> 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] Definitive map edits

2016-03-15 Thread SK53 
The Definitive Map (from whatever source) is likely to be OSGB derived
data; it may be that this is OK in OSM if, and only if, the relevant
council has released it as Open Data with a suitable licence. In general
most of us take a highly conservative approach to various shape files
released by councils (e.g., through Barry Cornelius Rowmaps site), and at
best use the data to do on-the-ground surveys,

An additional point is that an footpath mapped from old maps, council maps,
shapefiles, aerial images is nothing like as useful as one mapped by
someone walking it. The stiles and gates, which side of the hedgerow etc.
can only be added by a ground survey. Furthermore these often show that,
for instance the path might be a Right of Way but is not practicable or
that the actual path follows a route distinct from the line shown on the
council maps.

Most so-called definitive maps are not definitive: the associated textual
statement is usually more significant.

In summary this type of mapping is probably not under an acceptable licence
and unless a ground survey follow up is planned is rather less useful than
the mapper thinks (I know I've done this in the past). Note if this data is
available as a shape file it is relatively straightforward to create
another shapefile showing those paths missing from OSM, or those on OSM or
not marked as a PRoW (In most places we have more of the latter).

Jerry

On 15 March 2016 at 18:57, Neil Matthews  wrote:

> Anyone know whether "definitive maps" are suitable as sources for OSM?
>
> I'm seeing a lot of edits today by the same author that have comments
> about "the definitive map", e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37850221
>
> There are URLs for the source, but they don't seem to be valid?
>
> Cheers,
> Neil
>
> ___
> 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] Definitive map edits

2016-03-15 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Data for Rights of Way is listed at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils

With many then linking to the row maps website.

In this case it says "The release of the MapInfo files is licensed on terms
equivalent to the Ordnance Survey OpenData licence
.
So it's possible for other people to use their data." I've lost track of
where we are with the argument of whether people still have any concerns
but (since the updated OS OpenData licence) I'm relaxed about this.

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