A few quick notes, some of this has been said before:
- The license issue is complex, largely because there is no adequate audit trail of metadata associated with the data. As Phil says many definitive maps were compiled by parish councillors, but this would have been in the 1940s and 1950s with maps which are now out-of-copyright. This data would have been digitised (any-time from 1980s), but perhaps against an OS map which is in copyright with or without revisions. Even a release of data under OGL really needs clearance that OSGB see that none of their data have been used. - Definitive statements are more useful for us as they should describe the path alignment in words. Most councils have not digitised their definitive statements, let along released them under OGL. (Presumably this is largely a workload issue: I have no idea if they would be amenable to allowing digitisation to be crowd sourced). - A few councils definitely have released their PRoW data under OGL, one of them is Nottingham <http://www.opendatanottingham.org.uk/dataset.aspx?id=74>, which I believe sought the relevant dispensation from the OS. As an urban area Nottingham was exempt from the initial PRoW collection of data and has only been doing this under the CROW Act of 2000. This data is therefore much more accurately digitised: the problem is that establishing the status of some paths has been an arduous process. - Other urban areas have significant problems in finding the actual course of rights of way because areas have been built over. I think it was Tony Wroblewski who told me once about these issues for the Littleover area in Derby. - The OS does not claim copyright in the PRoW data themselves. It may be working with them on a clearer statement may help all concerned. This may be something that OSM-UK's existence may make easier. - The OS omits some PRoW data in hilly areas where the line of the definitive map is clearly incorrect & following the line could put walkers into danger. - Definitive lines in many areas have fallen into disuse and been replaced by more attractive alternatives (typically a path round a field edge rather than across the ploughed field. A good example surveyed on several occasions for OSM is the bridleway <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293561685>across Laxton Common to the south of Wellow Wood. This is merely mapped with the designation & access tags as, although it is marked there, is no trace on the ground. - Minor deviations of a path from the definitive line are very common. - Mapping infrastructure, barriers etc is extremely useful & often makes route finding easier than with OS 1:25k maps. - Mapping footpaths is fun, it really just provides a different set of goals for constructing a country walk. So if you enjoy a country walk it just requires a little bit more planning. - Several of us create maps comparing OSM & data from rowmaps (me, Robert Whittaker, Nick Whitlegg at least). Some of these are available on-line. The ones I do are one-offs so dont get updated, but I currently have fairly recent ones for South Central England (October) and North Midlands (March). Cheers, Jerry On 21 December 2016 at 10:39, Paul Berry <pmberry2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > As you probably know, local authorities must keep available an up-to-date > copy of rights of way for inspection. Can this information then be > incorporated into OSM, having been witnessed, or is it a case of public but > copyrighted? I'm currently nursing a complaint about a rural right of way > blockage (without a stopping-up order) in my area and have had the need to > get very familiar with my local footpaths... > > Regards, > *Paul* > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
