My initial thought was also "conspiracy!". Licence problem is more likely, or perhaps they were concerned that someone might poll the URL with every available UPRN.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2020, 11:38 Nick, <n...@foresters.org> wrote: > I have no problem with licencing but the UPRN and related data is > managed by Authority custodians - do they not retain ownership of that > data? > > If the authorities sell it to OS, then should this be raised with The Rt > Hon Alok Sharma MP (he owns 100% of the shares of OS)? > > N.B. there are some aspects to address data that is subject to other IP > rights but the remainder..... is surely of public interest and value. > > On 02/08/2020 10:34, Russ Garrett wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2020 at 10:20, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> > wrote: > >> Do you have a plausible hypothesis to explain the removal of UPRNs > >> from the flood warning pages, that also gives us a reason to trust the > >> organisation that enacted that change? > > It's almost certainly because some lawyer or other spotted that it's a > > violation of the PSGA (formerly PSMA) license under which the > > AddressBase data is made available to the Environment Agency. > > > > > https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licensing/psga-member-licence.pdf > > > > There's no conspiracy here beyond OS zealously protecting its data, as > > it always has done. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
