Hi, Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. Many councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.
Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job, the rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence terms differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is taken at face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS modified OGL ie. the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most seriously, rowmaps also relies on a misinterpretation of communication with OS to suggest that OS Open Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3 licenced material. All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM purposes as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity. Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with all of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them). I'll also try and get new or updated data where not currently available or several years old. Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear unambiguous licence on their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the relevant communication online so that it is verifiable and we do at least have certainty about the data currently available to us. In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data, rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems that only a minority of authorities who have released data currently publish it proactively. Kind regards, Adam On 27 May 2018 at 11:21, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote: > > Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should > theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data. > > > Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more > interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped > on OSM. > > > Nick > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
