Thank you for everyone's input, I really appreciate it. This is an interesting project, but it probably doesn't make sense to take it any further unless it is going to be feasible and the outcome useful.
Responses to some of Jerry's points: * The fact that some are mapped makes me a little sad, as it means that my searches for "site of special scientific interest" and "sssi" on openstreetmap.org didn't find any of them. I couldn't even figure out how to find them from that interface you linked to (which I hadn't seen before, thanks for that): anyone got suggestions for how I can track them down? * The protected area wiki indicates that SSSIs should be protection_class of 4, so that's what I was planning to use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area * I am aware that SSSIs change, so my plan was that my bot would look for an existing entry first, and if it exists, either modify or delete it (if the latter, I'd verify the tags were the same or something first). Thus it could be run occasionally (by me or anyone else) to update them. Thus before I start I would find the existing ones and figure out the best way to handle each: maybe they could just be modified so that my bot would pick them up and modify them. * The reason originally that I wanted to add these to OSM was because I found a completely un-covered area, and most of it was in a SSSI. I soon realised that it should be tagged with landuse etc anyway, but still I think that having this information in OSM would be very valuable. If they render (I haven't tested that yet), I don't think having them covering private land should preclude their import: after all, this is information sourced from the original definition, and if the private land owner disagrees then they should take it up with NE (I assume). * I would have thought that SSSIs could be a completely separate area from other classes of nature reserve, for the very reason that this data has a clear and precise source, and it is likely to be different from any other areas that might overlap it. If this is not the case and the SSSI should (in some cases) be defined by specific tags on other areas, then maybe this project is not viable. * From Owen's reply, it sounds like licensing is probably not an issue. This is certainly good news, as obviously that would knock this proposal on the head very swiftly. I'll do some research myself, but IANAL, and I doubt I'll be able to decipher the information. I might email NE and see if they can give me an answer, but I imagine it would be non-committal. And Phil's: * Although the nature reserves may be in OSM, I don't think any are tagged as SSSIs, which is what I would like to do. * Cross-border SSSIs are definitely a complicated issue, but one that it is possible to overcome, I feel. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! And now I just need to go and put these points in to my wiki page as potential issues! Many thanks, Henry On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 17:56, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > A few things: > > - A number of SSSI's are mapped > > <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=site_of_special_scientific_interest#values> > as many are co-incident with various types of Nature Reserves, although > sometimes there are minor differences in boundaries. For instance the SSSI > at Newhouse Farm National Nature Reserve is smaller than the NNR. > - SSSIs are not nature reserves, so protected area is correct. A > designation, protect_class etc should be considered. > - As some are already mapped, any import would need to detect > collisions & potentially do some quite complex processing if the SSSI is > not coincident with the element currently tagged with that information. > This needs to documented. I note that at least one SSSI lies within another > on OSM which is possibly inaccurate, or reflects historical change (merging > of 2 SSSIs). > - Document which transforms are used to convert from OSGB > co-ordinates. I suspect we have 3 potential ones in use EPSG:27700, OSTN02 > and OSTN15, see this > <https://www.bnhs.co.uk/focuson/grabagridref/html/OSGB.pdf> (lengthy) > doc from the OS. > - What is the purpose of adding these to OSM? If they get rendered > and show up on private land which is not accessible this may have > undesirable consequences. For 90% of all my purposes I only want SSSIs as > an overlay and find using the native data from NE/SNH/NRW either as a > separate layer in QGIS or as discrete tables in PostGIS is perfectly fine. > The major gripe is having to get data from 3 separate sources (it would be > 4 if NI ASSIs were available as open data). > - Virtually all of NE (and SNH & NRW) data is created against > MasterMap and therefore contains OSGB material. I think, but cannot be > certain, that NE obtained the necessary permissions for this data to be > freely usable. Owen Boswarva who occasionally contributes to the list may > know the actual position rather better than me. To date I have relied on > personal knowledge or survey for things like NNRs and LNRs rather than > consulting the NE shape files. (There's a reasonable write-up on Rowmaps as > to how this pertains to footpath data and the PSMA, but, again, I'm not > sure under what type of agreement NE licences OSGB dat) > - SSSIs change (although perhaps not as much as nature reserves), the > most notorious being the dunes at Menie: if data are imported there needs > to be some plan w.r.t. maintenance. > > Jerry > > On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 16:34, Henry Bush <openstreet...@spookypeanut.co.uk> > wrote: > >> Hmmm, I see. I'll dig further into the licensing side of things before I >> go any further. >> >> Thanks for the pointers! >> >> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 16:28 Chris Hill, <o...@raggedred.net> wrote: >> >>> I think there may be a problem here. The web page describing the data >>> says "© Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data". Many >>> public bodies suffer from the viral OS copyright problem, where the data is >>> based on OS mapping data and OS have claimed copyright over the geodata >>> element of such data in the past. >>> >>> You need to be sure this is not the case before you use any of these >>> datasets in OSM. >>> >>> -- >>> cheers >>> Chris Hill (chillly) >>> >>> >>> On 16/11/2019 15:30, Henry Bush wrote: >>> >>> Sorry, yes, the source of the data is the Natural England API: >>> >>> https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80 >>> >>> https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80_0/ >>> >>> The data is freely usable, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues. >>> >>> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 15:24, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> What is the source of the data you are planning to import? >>>> >>>> Remember wikipedia is not a useable source under OSM licensing terms. >>>> >>>> Phil (trigpoint) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 2019-11-16 at 15:12 +0000, Henry Bush wrote: >>>> > Hello all, >>>> > >>>> > (I've sent this to both the talk-gb and imports mailing lists) >>>> > >>>> > This is just a heads-up: I'm thinking about importing the data about >>>> > UK SSSI areas into openstreetmap. >>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest >>>> > >>>> > I've had a quick look at a few, and none of them seemed to be marked >>>> > on the map. If I go ahead with the import, I'd do a much more >>>> > thorough investigation first. This mail is simply a prompt for >>>> > discussion as to whether people think it's a good idea. >>>> > >>>> > At the moment I'm still in the research phase. I've started >>>> > collecting related links on a wiki page: >>>> > >>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Spookypeanut/SSSIBot >>>> > >>>> > NB: this page is really just bookmarks for me at this stage. If I go >>>> > ahead I'll make a proper, more informative page. >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
