WHy excluding Medway? Isn't KCC HQ in Chatham? On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
> I applied to KCC for permission to use data from their Highways Gazetteer in > OSM. They have approved on the condition that the data is attributed to them. > My request and their official reply are below. What this gives us is an > authorititave source for road numbering and classification in Kent (excluding > Medway), although it does require a little bit of thinking as there are no > coordinates, only road and place names. So for example we take Whitehill Road > and Highcross Road between Longfield and Bean [1] the Gazetteer makes clear > that these roads are still officially the B255, even though the signs have > not revealed this for years. For the attribution they require I intend to use > source:ref=kent.gov.uk. > > Which brings me to a dilemma: If a road is ostensibly one type but officially > another, how should this be tagged? Both are "verifiable." Traditionally the > official classification takes precedence - otherwise the single-track A-roads > in the Scottish highlands and islands might better be tagged as as "track" in > some cases... The Wiki [2] specifically refers to the Administrative > classifications. > > Another use of this Gazetteer is to arbitrate between road classes, > particularly between tertiary (i.e. C-roads) and unclassified, where there is > mostly no visible difference "on the ground". That throws up the odd anomaly > as well: New Ash Green [3] got its very own bypass in the seventies, which is > single carriageway but very wide. The much smaller original "main road" which > goes through the village still retains the "C" classification, and the > relatively enormous bypass is still "unclassified". > > It occurred to the cynic in me that the lengths of roads of various classes > might be fed into some spreadsheet in Whitehall to calculate some kind of > grant to the local councils, giving them an interest in keeping the > administrative classifications as "high" as possible, despite downgrading > them on the ground. But that's unlikely to be true of course. > > Colin Smale > > [1] > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40868&lon=0.2965&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway > [3] > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3665&lon=0.30171&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF > ========================= > Dear Sirs, > > I am one of an army of volunteers who collectively are producing and > maintaining "openstreetmap.org" ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ), a > crowd-sourced map of the world under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons by > > Share-Alike) licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ ), with > which you may be familiar. > > Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request your > permission to use and republish certain information contained in this > document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap. > > One of the problems we frequently face is that the official category of a > road (or segment thereof) is not always immediately obvious "on the ground". > I would like to use this document to classify (minor) roads correctly as (for > example distinguishing between "unclassified" and "tertiary"), add the > official road number, and possibly its status as a private (unadopted) > street. The Highways Gazetteer contains no location information (other than > place names) and therefore is probably unencumbered by Ordnance Survey > restrictions, which would render the data unusable in the CC-BY-SA licence > model. The alignment of the road will still be surveyed "on the ground", but > thereafter the Gazetteer will be used to classify the road correctly as > mentioned. > > Yours sincerely, > Colin Smale > > ========================= > Dear Mr Smale, > Further to your request for information relating to re-use of information > from the Kent Highways Gazetteer, because the information you have requested > falls under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and is > information held within the Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate (the > directorate), your request has been forwarded to me so that I can co-ordinate > the response on behalf of the directorate. This is to comply with procedures > that the County Council has for dealing with all FoIA requests. > > You ask the Council: > > • Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request your > permission to use and republish certain information contained in this > document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap > Although the response below has been sent from me, I have liaised with Kent > Highway Services who have provided the following in answer to your request: > > Kent County Council are willing to allow the information in the Highway > Gazetteer to be used for the purpose of Open Street Map on the proviso that > we receive confirmation that the data source is kent.gov.uk. > > ========================= > > On 03/01/2010 12:36, Colin Smale wrote: >> While searching the internet for arbitration in a case where "local >> wisdom" appeared to conflict with OSM data I came across the Kent County >> Council Highways Gazetteer. It contains a "complete" list of roads in >> Kent, including their reference, road number, name, official >> classification, parish and length. >> >> It's a PDF file, linked from here: >> >> http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/transport_policies/road_status/adopted_and_private_streets.aspx >> >> >> I would like to use this document to classify minor roads correctly as >> "unclassified" or "tertiary", add the official road number, at least to >> the "tertiary" roads, i.e. C-roads, and possibly "access=permissive" >> where the road is a privately maintained road (assuming unhindered >> access etc. as described on the Wiki). >> >> There is no sign of any OS-encumbrances; there is no real location >> information in the file. The KCC (together with district councils I >> assume) can be considered a fairly authoritative source for this >> information. >> >> Would it be OK to derive tagging in this way? Should we get explicit >> permission from KCC first? Anyone got any experience with this, or >> example emails for this kind of request? >> >> Colin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> >> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
