Oh dear! I seem to have triggered a hornet's nest - and one that may
well belong in the legal list rather than here.
For what it's worth, most Highway Authorities publish lists of the
public rights of way in their area as a spreadsheet or similar -
nevertheless leaving open the argument as to how they created the
spreadsheet and whether the OS has copyright over any grid references
(as opposed to text descriptions) therein - or (but much less often) in
the corresponding "definitive statement" (as opposed to "definitive map"
- with the "statement" having legal precedence). It is also the case
that some Highway Authorities have explicitly stated that the data on
PROWs (as opposed to any underlying mapping) is licence-free.
It might be worth bearing in mind that - thanks in part from the
pressures exerted by excellent projects such as OSM - the UK government
and the OS are in the process of considerably liberalising their
position on what may and what may not be done by taxpayers (who have
already funded both the OS and the Highway Authority!) licence-free -
bearing in mind that if a member of the public can only access legal
information about the status and location of a "public right of way" by
paying for an OS licence this might tend to reverse the normal legal
principle that "ignorance of the law is no defence" and discriminate
against the less well off taxpayer. It would also be interesting to seek
the views of the many thousands of solicitors doing conveyancing work
(who are supposed to check whether there are any public rights of way on
the property concerned) or of a similar number doing planning
applications (again a PROW search is mandatory). Somehow I don't think
even the OS would even welcome the huge influx of work by selling tens
of thousands of extra licences each year - and I don't know a single
solicitor who would do other than consult the definitive map held by the
Highway Authority.
Our legal eagles may wish to revisit this issue (UK specific) quite
frequently as the new regulations settle in. As a minimum precaution I
would certainly advocate that under no circumstances should this sort of
data be used other than on ways that have been physically surveyed on
the ground. Beyond this, I would claim quite a bit of knowledge in this
area but not enough to try to argue one extreme position or another -
but let's not make this a "theatre of the absurd" - or I will be sorely
tempted to argue a "reductio ad absurdum" case ;-) ;-) .
Mike (with apologies for starting this hare running - and for mixing
metaphors).
On 20/03/2010 11:58, [email protected] wrote:
Send newbies mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of newbies digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again (Mike Harris)
2. Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again (James Ewen)
3. Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again (Andre Engels)
4. Re: Footpaths again (James Ewen)
5. Re: Footpaths again (Andre Engels)
6. Re: Footpaths again (Richard Welty)
7. Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again (Richard Weait)
8. Re: Fwd: Re: Re: Footpaths again (Phil Monger)
_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
