On 05/09/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: It would seem ridiculous
for me to have to set up an account and> licence the underlying section
of map to sell a single field But what> if I'm selling 15,000
fields?? etc., etc.
Field boundaries don't change much over the years. If you use an
..and therein lies the issue. In the olden days it was obvious if you had
copied someone else's data as you'd copied a large section of map. They
would prove this via 'trap streets'. But in the digital age you can
assemble a larger dataset from multiple tiny ones, so Ordnance Survey have
to assert
5 Sep 2019, 00:40 by bainton@gmail.com:
> Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one
> legally speaking? I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in the
> derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered.
>
As far as copyright goes, t
As far as I know Ordnance Survey's theory of derived data has never been
tested in court. However there's an upcoming High Court decision (arising
from a dispute between 77M Ltd and OS) that might shed some light.
On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 23:42, Edward Bainton wrote:
The idea of asking a ranger to
The idea of asking a ranger to trace the boundary (on a printout of a
thoroughly detailed OSM, of course: better get to work...) is a great one.
iirc, the boundaries are all pretty major geographical features, so
hopefully fairly easy. But yes, Jez, what a faff.
Out of interest, is OS's position
5 matches
Mail list logo