-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:30:56 +0100
From: Mike Harris <m...@delco.idps.co.uk>
To: Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com>
CC: talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
Dave
Some of the documentation to which I have access as a member of the
public uses the acronym ORPA, some spells it out.
The following quotes are from "Rights of Way: A Guide to Law and
Practice", 4th Edition; John Riddall and John Trevelyan (2007).
A. "... the Hobhouse Committee recommended (paragraph 45 of its [1947]
report) that the information contained in those [definitive] maps should
also be shown on OS maps. ... that recommendation was accepted in 1958
by OS ..."
IMHO this indicates that the data on definitive maps is not the property
of the OS. Rather that a government Committee recommended that they make
use of it and they agreed. Thus it is - in this respect - the OS map
that is a derivative work rather than the definitive map. Any copyright
issues therefore relate to the Highway Authority's definitive map and
not to the derived OS map.
B. "...They [the OS Explorer© maps] also show 'other routes with public
access' (ORPAs). These are routes which are not shown on the definitive
map and not shown coloured on the OS map, (thereby leading to
uncertainty about their status) but which are recorded in the highway
authority's list of streets ..."
C. "...Section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 requires every highway
authority to make, and keep up to date, a list of streets within its
area which are highways maintainable at public expense. The list must be
available for inspection [by the general public] free of charge at the
council's offices ... some authorities regard themselves as complying
with section 36(6) by maintaining the relevant information in the form
of a map ... there will be many streets shown in the list which do not
appear on the definitive map ... the inclusion of a way on the list of
streets is evidence of no more than that it is a highway, inclusion of a
way on the list gives no guidance as to the nature of the rights that
exist over it (other than that inclusion on the list foes prove that at
least a right of way on foot exists) ..."
IMHO B and C together indicate that information contained in the list of
streets has nothing whatsoever to do with the OS and lies in the public
domain.
I would deduce (possibly incorrectly, but not assume or guess) that if
the OS choose to depict upon their maps something that lies in the
public domain they cannot then claim copyright over it. The question is
then whether the phrase or acronym by which they choose to describe it
is subject to copyright or whether others may use the phrase or acronym
without a licence to do so. In other words, I deduce that there is no
problem for OSM over depiction of the way (always assuming - by which in
this instance I mean "on condition that" - the way has either been
surveyed on the ground (as all mine are) or are derived from a
legitimate licence-free source. Nor is there any difficulty over adding
a key or value that states that the way - if an ORPA - has public rights
on foot. When (if?) OSM says something is an ORPA, this is surely
shorthand for saying that it does not appear on the definitive map but
does appear on the list of streets.
The question is only what may we call it, i.e. whether we are free to
use this shorthand. The use of the acronym "ORPA" or the phrase "other
routes with public access" is a term invented by the OS. Does this mean
that as a result we cannot use the term? I would be interested to hear
views from others on this specific point.
At present - but subject to change - my own view is that:
- the OS never wished to (nor could) restrict the use of the phrase or
acronym - indeed it is difficult to discuss ORPAs unless we do use the
phrase or acronym!
- they cannot (and I doubt they would wish to) restrict the use of the
information that the way has rights of access on foot - they themselves
got this information from someone else (the highway authority) who has a
statutory obligation to make that information public.
- they might wish to restrict the copying of the way itself from some of
their maps (but no difference here from anything else on a restricted OS
map) and we shouldn't do it.
In other words:
- the depiction of the way is OK subject to the usual OSM conditions
(approximately: surveyed on the ground by us or derived from a
licence-free source).
- the information as to rights on the way is OK if not simply derived
from its depiction as an ORPA on an OS map but from its presence in the
list of streets and absence from the definitive map (or other non-OS
sources of such information).
- as to the usefulness, I would submit that it is useful to know that
public rights on (at least) foot exist - i.e. as opposed to other ways
where no such rights exist - even if we don't know about 'higher rights'.
- could we do this simply by using a "designation" or "access" tag? -
possibly. But can we all agree how to do so - I doubt it based on past
experience of other similar designation matters in our mailing lists and
wiki!
- do we want to distinguish between the rights (at least on foot)
existing on an ORPA from those different rights (on foot) existing on a
footpath? I would have thought it useful in a database (such as OSM) to
log what rights are known to exist. Others might think this too detailed
- but I have never seen an instruction that we should draw a line (how?)
as to how much detail to include in OSM.
The use of the acronym "ORPA" or the phrase "other routes with public
access" is a term invented by the OS but does this prevent others using
the neologism? We invented the acronym "OSM" and the phrase
"OpenStreetMap" - but could we - even if we wished to - exercise some
rights of the use of the acronym or phrase? Especially after it had
entered the common language?
If there is a problem in some people's minds with using the terms "ORPA"
or "other route with public access" within OSM there would seem to be
several possible solutions. What do others think?
1. Ask the OS whether we may freely use the acronym or phrase in our
tagging of a route where we have the information from sources other than
the OS (i.e the defined combination of the definitive map and the list
of streets)?
2. Change all references in the OSM database from "ORPA" or "other route
with public access" to "foot=yes" and/or "designation=[new value to be
decided]", e.g. "designation = PAALF [public access at least on foot]"?
Those interested might like to look at web sites owned by the various
off-road associations in England who themselves have endless discussions
about whether or not trail riders etc. may use ORPAs (they at least seem
to care about ORPAs!). At least they are not shy about using the acronym
to designate what they are discussing.
Finally: a related series of questions
Sometimes when I survey a path on the ground that purports to be a
public right of way (e.g. by waymarking and/or presence of furniture,
etc.) I know from other (non-OS) sources that the line on the ground
differs significantly from the actual legal line of the public right of
way. Waymarking has no legal significance (I am authorised to put them
up myself although I would refrain from doing so in practice if I knew
the route was off-line; I would instead discuss with the mapping
anomalies people in my authority). If the path on the ground is
nevertheless the only reasonably walkable path (and especially if it has
been waymarked and/or furnished - rightly or wrongly) I would want to
put this route into the OSM database rather than the legal line. But I
would want to add a note (as a note= tag) to the effect that it is not
the public right of way (I don't want to be the one to encourage someone
to trespass).
If the legal route is not even walkable I would not normally map it - I
would only map the path on the ground. But if the legal route is also
walkable and identifiable without the use of OS mapping, I would want to
map this as well and add appropriate designation and/or access tags.
Now, if the OS also shows one or the other route I might ideally want to
indicate which is correct in law and which is the 'customary' route and
what can actually be walked. But may I do this? It is a fact of life
that the OS map is often wrong and often depicts as a right of way a
line that is not the one shown on the definitive map and/or one that is
not the (only) walkable route on the ground and/or the route that is
waymarked and furnished. This is why the OS has a rider/disclaimer on
all of its maps. I believe that it is useful for people to know whether
a route shown on the OS map has rights and/or whether such a route is
even walkable. Ideally, OSM would be a more accurate and current source
of information. But can we indicate this - e.g. in a note= tag - as we
can only know that the OS is wrong by looking at the OS map!
Regards
Mike Harris
On 19:59, Dave F. wrote:
On 24/03/2011 16:09, Mike Harris wrote:
Dave
I am interested in your opinion but please hold back slightly from
giving me instructions as to what to do or not do. There might be
other opinions.
Uh?
My initial post was a question, your first reply was an instruction!
My use of the verb "assume" was more to ask for other opinions - and
thank you for yours - than to claim that my personal assumption (or
anyone else's for that matter) was a valid basis for OSM work.
Assumption differs from guessing inasmuch as there needs to be at
least some basis for the former!
I've looked it up, and nowhere does it say that making an assumption
is asking for opinion:
assume
1. To authenticate by means of belief; to surmise; to suppose to be
true, especially without proof.
To help me decide where I stand, please could you provide me with the
evidence for your statement that the acronym "ORPA" is copyright to
the OS?
I didn't say that, which I think you know. Taking information from
copyrighted data is illegal.
Seeing as you failed to answer previously, I'll ask my question again
- Do these lists use the name ORPA?
I have not seen it registered as a trade mark or similar? but perhaps
I have missed that. Does the copyright you mention extend to the
English language phrase "other routes with public access" - I would
have thought that such a phrase would be difficult to protect with
copyright?
If OS came up with the phrase & are its only users, I would say not, &
err on the side of caution.
I won't enter hear into the debate as to whether OSM should record
only and exclusively what can be seen on the ground as this has been
discussed endlessly. I suspect that your opinion is currently a
minority view. It seems to me that there are countless (in all sorts
of contexts) examples of people including in the database information
that cannot be seen on the ground e.g. the "source" tag.
It's disappointing you misinterpreted by comment as being exclusive;
but maybe you needed to, to further your contrariness.
Let's not get too dictatorial in this discussion!
Pot, kettle. See my initial point above.
----------------
Back to ORPA.
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 verified by other means than the OS.
In the cases of use I mentioned, the removal of ORPA did not reduce
the accuracy of the ways.
*If* OS is the only source then I believe it should be be removed for
reasons already stated.
Dave F.
--
*Mike Harris*
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
