-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Re: [OSM-newbies] newbies Digest, Vol 37, Issue 32
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:39:36 +0000
From: Mike Harris <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Thanks for the update on OS funding - it must be the first government
agency not to receive funds from government - lets hope there will be
many more examples in the future!
You are of course correct that OS maps are not a legal document and
carry an appropriate disclaimer - but the definitive map IS a legal source.
Although solicitors pass some parts of their enquiries to the Land
Registry there is no information on the Land Registry regarding public
rights of way - this they get (or should get - they often forget,
leading to big problems in later years) from the Highway Authority's
records as the only legal source.
Guess we'd better leave it hear as we're in the wrong thread! :-[
On 19:59, Phil Monger wrote:
Just a small point from Mikes email - the Ordnance Survey has not been
tax funded at all since 1999 - and was only partly so before then.
The misconception that the tax-payer funds the data has been fed on by
the "free our data" campaigners .. whose use of the word "our" is as
liberal as possible.
Just an aside, but worth mentioning :)
Solicitors, as it happens, pass such matters through the UK land
registry - OS maps deliberately and specifically mention that they are
not a legal document and cannot be used as such.
On 20 March 2010 13:34, Mike Harris <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Send newbies mailing list submissions to
[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
--
*Mike Harris*
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
newbies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
