On 4 March 2012 12:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Simon has very kindly provided this:
http://odbl.poole.ch/uk_major_roads.txt
Excellent -- thanks to both of you for getting this done. Do you know
if/when that file will be updated as ways are re-mapped?
MarkS
On 2 March 2012 14:35, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
We change to the new licence in just under a month's time, so it's a good
time to look at the current state of the UK.
We're almost certainly not going to be able to able to get the UK
completely clean by the switch-over, and
On 2 February 2012 13:43, Woll Newall w...@2-islands.com wrote:
What is the consensus on the legal status of an object that has been created
by a non-agreer, but all of the nodes and all of the tags have been
deleted/changed by agreers?
i.e.:
1) Non-agreer creates a way with tags 'name=A'
On 24 December 2011 19:32, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I have prepared changes to the OSMI map that allow me to
* treat any tags contributed by a non-agreeing mapper as harmless if
these tags are not present any more in the current version
Are you sure that this is a good idea?
On 5 December 2011 17:44, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
You may remember the announcement of the University of Cambridge's
OpenStreetMap project back in July
I was appointed to the project from that and I have now written up a bit
about what I'm doing on my OSM diary (
2011/10/10 Carlos Dávila cdavi...@orangecorreo.es:
I would like to know if it would be possible with the new license to
distribute maps which combine OSM data and other data licensed under a more
restrictive license (basically non commercial use permitted). AFAIK it is
not possible with the
On 3 September 2011 05:03, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
The first is a contract of adhesion: Here's my
work; I renounce any copyright claims over it. The OSMF has the
choice of accepting that contract or rejecting it, just as it does the
contract formed by agreeing to the Contributor
On 9 August 2011 03:17, maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a mapping project for an organization involved in conservation
and natural resources management. We are planning to create an
internal/local webmapping application to help the organization in
monitoring several
On 29 July 2011 13:09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Steve Coast wrote:
Hi Robert
Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email?
Robert and Steve - has there been any progress on this yet?
Not that I'm aware of. As far as I know, OSMF have yet to say anything
officially
On 20 July 2011 19:32, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than
the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF?
As I already explained to you off-list when you asked this before:
It's because the CTs are a
On 20 July 2011 17:25, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few
weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this
at their most recent meeting...
They have now done so!
Yes, I've seen
On 5 July 2011 15:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
But personally I consider that this OS
statement has put the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be
terrific if - the Contributor Terms clarification permitting - you could
agree for your data.
Indeed. I assure you
On 5 July 2011 13:14, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements
over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone,
nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial'
On 4 July 2011 13:53, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey
has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and
ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData
being
On 20 June 2011 16:44, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote:
On 6/19/2011 1:16 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would
apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them.
However, since the CTs represent
On 22 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF
board members, so you then can make an official statement
about Michael's post.
I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons
On 18 June 2011 10:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
OK. So what I mean by some of the questions don't make sense is
exactly this. I'm afraid you and lots of others who ask questions use
a lot of short-hand (lawyers sometimes do this too). The problem is
then I don't know what
On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into
ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa.
Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution
On 19 June 2011 11:21, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote:
Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound
recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics,
I'm
On 18 June 2011 15:01, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current* license
terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting the
contributor terms.
Many thanks for this. If that's how the Contributor Terms are to be
On 17 June 2011 18:04, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
Andy Allan also provided a good argued answer to a similar question
to yours on http://help.openstreetmap.org [2] in case you haven't
seen it.
I hadn't seen it, so thanks. But there's also a response below it
explaining why Ed's reasoning
On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would
summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some
contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new
terms without
On 17 June 2011 14:11, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote:
Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a
contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the
compatibility of OS open data
I'm sorry, but if you've used OS OpenData in previous contributions,
On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is
relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In
practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than
that, and which
On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use
this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility
between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence)
and the way in which OSMF
On 16 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
A major purpose of the CTs is to ensure that all the data
remaining in OSM is suitable for re-licensing under any Free
and Open license without the need for further checks.
No, that hasn't been the
On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember
correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been
resistant.
There would presumably be no need to engage with OS if LWG was happy
that the OS OpenData
On 5 May 2011 18:01, Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
Should we add something about permissive and private paths to this view? If
we had that then the job to do locally would be to convert all the grey
paths and turn them into one of the colours. Currently anything that is
Peter Miller peter.mil...@itoworld.com wrote:
You may wish find the 'surfaces' view more useful for getting a general
insight into path density around the UK and elsewhere. This view does in
fact mirror the patchy nature of path data in the UK.
On 5 May 2011 17:03, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
Not sure how widespread this is but I tag byways as
designation=public_byway. Might be good to show these too.
Quite widespread, judging by taginfo [1]. For the byway-related
designation=* values, we have:
645
On 22 April 2011 19:53, Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com wrote:
They are saying it is OK to use the public rights of way information shown
on the definitive map (and described in the corresponding definitive
statements) as this is seen as data which the public can use as of right.
They are
On 21 April 2011 13:50, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
Contrary to Robert's view, I don't think FOI can be used to get the
information directly, as the FOI response is still copyright.
I never said FOI will get you data that you're automatically free to
re-use, only that it may be a
On 18 April 2011 23:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Richard Bullock wrote:
It's on the Copyright page though
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
United Kingdom: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and
database right 2010.
That is, IIRC, what we were required to
On 19 April 2011 20:06, Graham Jones grahamjones...@gmail.com wrote:
Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my
non-OS based contributions being removed,
That would only be the case if/when we proceed to the next stage in
the licence change process and you
I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've
previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is
that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with
the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4).
I appreciate that licence
On 18 April 2011 16:59, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker wrote:
I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because
I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData
In which case, I would appreciate it that if you carry out any future
non-OS-derived
On 18 April 2011 22:50, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
TimSC wrote:
We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki [1] for CC attribution.
Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current
practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over
On 13 April 2011 23:06, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Clause 2 is a grant for certain rights. From previous discussion here,
can I assume that I can agree if I'm not the copyright holder, and
that I only grant the rights I can under the licence I received the
data under?
That depends
On 13 April 2011 22:24, James Livingston li...@sunsetutopia.com wrote:
With the upcoming requirement to accept/decline the contributor terms,
I thought it was about time to figure out whether and how I can agree to
them. I've had a look around but can't see any FAQs for the contributor
terms,
On 14 April 2011 09:34, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
Strictly speaking, you can make use of them, but contributors are (i) in
breach of contract in contributing that material and (ii) may (in some
circumstances) infringe copyright by authorising OSMF to do acts which are
infringements
On 25 March 2011 21:42, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
With it using the vagueness of 'other' I'm failing to see it's usefulness.
It only tells us what it is not gives no indication of what it actually
represents.
The alternative tags of foot, horse etc. are better used as they can be
On 23 March 2011 11:18, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com 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
On 23 March 2011 12:47, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com 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
On 26 January 2011 18:02, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 26/01/2011 17:24, Ralph Smyth wrote:
You can see the sign by rule 218 of
the Highway Code, although some pre-2006 schemes used a different sign:
www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069858
So there
On 4 January 2011 23:33, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have
to delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remove such data
first
On 4 January 2011 16:22, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
John Smith wrote:
That might work for ODBL which has attribution requirements, although
if produced works are exempt from attribution requirements
They're not. ODbL 4.3 requires attribution on produced works.
ODbL 4.3
On 8 November 2010 14:37, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
I think some discussion of this has come up before (some time ago) but how
many people are tagging footpaths with their council reference numbers?
I asked about this previously at:
Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the
LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for
contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under
some other licence.
The way in which clause 2 works gives
Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
My specific point was that *if* you want the CT's to be permissive
about importation, then it is fairer on contributors and clearer to
provide an express list of compatible licenses - to avoid contributors
having to make the judgment themselves.
I think
Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no
mechanism
Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata#License
Can someone confirm/deny that it's still interoperable with new license as
it's worded at the moment.
Has anyone been in contact with OS to discuss this?
I've been exchanging emails
OS opendata is released under a CC-BY-SA licence
Please go and actually read the OS OpenData licence. It is not CC-BY-SA.
Please stop spreading this FUD.
You're right, it's not CC-By-SA. The actual license is a custom
attribution-style license, that's closest equivalent in CC terms
would be
However, that doesn't change the fact that the OS OpenData license is
incompatible with the contributor terms, and DbCL, and quite possibly
ODbL too.
I thought this was still to be confirmed? It may not be that important to
townies but there is a lot of value in the OS data for rural
80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
OSMF rights that you don't possess.
CC-BY-SA does not grant you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright and so
25, Markus marku...@bigpond.com wrote:
Why couldn't this be added to CT Section 3 saying.
If the OSMF does decide to change the licence, any existing data that may
then not be compatible will need to be removed.
Would this then make cc-by existing data compatible with the new licence?
I
Graham Jones grahamjones...@googlemail.com wrote:
I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want
to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking
at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that
it will make
Emilie Laffray emilie.laff...@gmail.com wrote:
The second point is that I don't see the relation between knowing how much
OS OpenData and the switch to the new licence. Talks of losing data is
partially a self fulfilling prophecy. It is impossible right now to gauge
how much data IF ANY we
On 7 June 2010 16:39, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Richard,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it
might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that
Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced
On 7 June 2010 13:08, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Frederik Ramm frede...@... writes:
Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately
addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later?
Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data
On 24 May 2010 14:56, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
My understanding is that the current terms from OS are
incompatible with ODbL (in particular the part that allows
produced works to be released to the public domain).
This is a canard and I wish
On 24 May 2010 16:42, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
My reading of 4.3 is that you would have to tell people that the
image was derived from OSM and that the OSM database is
available under ODbL.
To comply with ODbL for data obtained from OSM, you
On 23 May 2010 20:00, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote:
I have done a small test of automatically tracing buildings from OS
Street View. I have limited this to Wood Street Village, near Guildford.
I have not done any manual improvements but these should be done to
improve the quality.
On 11 May 2010 11:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
It's my intention to ask about the whole path issue (will they release
footpaths; definitive maps; derived data) at the presentation tomorrow
evening (see other message).
There are some interesting comments from OS about
On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn i...@dynoyo.plus.com wrote:
In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS
layer. But for each parish, they also publish a text description of
each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. Useful as not all
real-world physical signs
On 1 April 2010 09:41, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
It's up and available:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf
The main wrinkle seems to be this part on their requirement for attribution:
include the same acknowledgement requirement in any
301 - 365 of 365 matches
Mail list logo
