Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
What is actually meant by 'Rights of Way Data' here? As per the online maps [1] it also includes: . Long Distance Routes . Countryside Services . District Boundaries Are these part of the Open Data release as well? Note they don't appear in the KML download that I've looked at. (I've not tried the shapefile) [1] http://localviewmaps.hants.gov.uk/LocalViewmaps/Sites/ROWOnline/# Probably means we can't fix up OSM routes using the HCC online version :( Be Seeing You - Rob. If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
I have looked at the ESRI shapefile and can confirm that it contains just the Public Rights of Way [1] too. None of the extra bits you identified below (however this was expected as it is all we asked for). Long distance trials are in the Natural England data set, boundaries in the OS OpenData files. . Long Distance Routes . Countryside Services . District Boundaries Regards, Rob [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_access_provisions#Public_Rights_of_Way ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hello everyone, Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. Details here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104 Slippy map, and downloadable raw data (shp or kml format) at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former, and do some, at least, of the latter though in other areas of the county it would be better done with people with local knowledge. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. \o/ If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former If you use Potlatch 2 there's probably no need to develop a special tool: you can load shapefiles directly as a background layer (including reprojection from OSGB), and use MapCSS to remap tags. Details at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/16951 cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Hampshire-Rights-of-Way-Data-released-under-OS-OpenData-licence-tp5710823p5710833.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On 31 May 2012 10:46, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? We can certainly use OS's OS OpenData products (with the exception of CodePoint Open) in OSM because LWG obtained explicit permission from Ordnance Survey to do so. [1] The OS OpenData License consists of the Open Government License (OGL) together with an additional attribution clause. The OGL itself is compatible with both CC-By-SA and ODbL, since it mentions them explicitly. However, my understanding is that the OS OpenData License itself isn't compatible with ODbL because of the additional attribution clause. The attribution requirement means that any derived works need to maintain the attribution. But ODbL allows users to give away Produced Works which can then be re-used without any attribution requirements. Hence we have an incompatibility. This argument was disputed by some people during the license change debate, but LWG still felt is necessary to get explicit permission from OS to use their OS OpenData [1]. More importantly, LWG have explicitly stated that we cannot use CodePoint Open (since Royal Mail refused permission) even though it too is licensed under the OS OpenData license [2]. So I think we have to take it that LWG's position is that the OS OpenData License itself isn't enough to guarantee ODbL compatibility. Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Robert. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-January/012688.html -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 10:46 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Some good news! As from yesterday, Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of Way data under the OS OpenData licence. Good news indeed. This must be the reason why they've been too busy to answer my licensing query despite me chasing them about it! ;) Details here: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/communications/mediacentre/mediareleases.htm?newsid=534104 Slippy map, and downloadable raw data (shp or kml format) at: http://www3.hants.gov.uk/row/row-maps.htm I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we? I think that the general consensus is that we can. If so, I'd imagine what we need to do is: - convert this data to .osm files with OSM tagging, and - manually (not automatically!) add any paths not already in OSM to OSM. I could develop a tool for the former, and do some, at least, of the latter though in other areas of the county it would be better done with people with local knowledge. While I believe that this data release is a good thing may I take this opportunity to remind people that legality is not always reality. If you intend to use this dataset then please do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:16 +0100, Andy Street wrote: While I believe that this data release is a good thing may I take this opportunity to remind people that legality is not always reality. If you intend to use this dataset then please do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. Everyone knows (at least *should* know) that rights of way aren't the same as paths. There are lots of examples in OS maps where the right of way diverges from the path. Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Andy Street wrote: ... do a ground survey to ensure that the path actually follows the route recorded in the definitive map. ... or use a source tag to make it clear where it's come from and that a ground survey hasn't been done there? I'm sure that there'll be places where a right of way does one thing and the path on the ground another. Just last night I found a designated bridleway (also explicitly signed for cyclists at one end) that from point A goes into a field of barley to the field boundary, then left for a similar distance to point B, rather than using an existing gravel track that goes direct from A to B. Clearly everyone (excepting the odd pedant) uses the gravel track, but it's not where the sign points. I'll add both when I add them, but it'll be the mostly unused one that gets the designation added. In some parts of the country you could put the difference between council data and a path in OSM as less than accurate path recording in OSM, but thanks to Andy and Nick in Hampshire I don't think that's likely to be the case much there. Cheers, A different Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem. If the terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more concerned. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
- Original Message - From: Andy Street m...@andystreet.me.uk To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 13:29 +0100, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Any other opinions on this or is this definite? The guy I've been in contact with at Hants CC was giving the impression it was OK, I could ask him explicitly if that's any help. Nick I have to admit that as soon as I read your first email, I had excatly the same concerns as Robert Whittaker. While HCC could theoretically include any odd request they like in their licence (all members of your organisation must dance the fandango every Friday?) I can't see that they'd want us to enforce attribution of a third party for any other reason than to satisfy licence conditions imposed on them. Since the OS has already given us the green light to include OS OpenData in ODbL then I don't see this as a problem. However OS OpenData specifically excludes Rights Of Way information. So it would be difficult to draw any inference from the prior agreement between OS OSM as to how that might apply to ROW data from HCC. In effect you seem to be saying that since we have an agreement to use some specific OS data under the terms agreed between OS OSM, then we have permission to use any OS data under that agreement. David If the terms stated that we had to enforce attribution of HCC too I'd be more concerned. Cheers, Andy ___ 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Hampshire Rights of Way Data released under OS OpenData licence
Hi Nick, Whilst the legal side is being discussed, I notice that the press release makes no reference to the Definitive Statement. Did you ask about this? / Have you had any direct response from the Council? Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
