On 04/11/15 11:48, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 4 November 2015 at 10:25, Mark Goodge <m...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >> > Unfortunately, the NSG is not Open Data, so it isn't available to OSM by >> > default. The nearest we can do is attempt to visually classify by >> > observation. That's one of the weaknesses of a crowd-sourced approach., If >> > that matters to you, you might want to get involved in the campaign to get >> > the NSG released as Open Data. > I fear the NSG will probably never be open data, as it's based on OS > base maps, and replicates a large quantity of key OS data (i,e. the > road network). However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the > classification information is inaccessible to OSM. Under the Highways > Act, each highway authority (usually a County Council or Unitary > Authority) is required to maintain a "list of highways maintainable at > public expense" commonly known as the "List of Streets", and make it > available for public inspection. Any rights in this information are > likely to rest solely with the highway authority, so they should be > able to give permission to use it under e.g. the Open Government > Licence, which would then allow its use in OSM. > > I have some notes about requesting and getting permission to use these > (and some other related) documents, which people may find useful: > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-docs.htmlt
Since the source of the material for both NSG and NLPG is a legal requirement on the various local councils, giving that information to a commercial operation is fundamentally wrong, so all should be freely available, and there is no reason that each council could not provide the material on a free licence prior to it's delivery to geoplaces and then we can all benefit from it. I've campaigned for that for all the time that that material has been provided to me for use in our own systems. It is only when graphic elements are added that OS could claim some IP, but the coordinates provided work equally well with OSM data, and we can use OSM graphics to eliminate the OS tie-in. The point I was trying to make was that Secondary, tertiary and unclassified are essentially the same level of importance for road navigation and so treating them differently in rendering ( or routing rules ) adds an incorrect importance to one over the other. In the absence of any other evidence I'm planning to simply re-tag the problem unclassified routes as tertiary for now, but I can make a case for all being secondary so they get rendered with the same separation from the sections of the road system that should not be used for through routing. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
