Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a > right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an > access= tag The world is calling the UK, it wants its foot tag back. Is there ever going to be a way to solve different meanings in different areas, or is it a problem that is just to be ignored? /Erik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
Nick Whitelegg >Sent: 20 November 2008 3:27 PM >To: Donald Allwright >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold >over "derived" geographic data in the UK > >>Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity >here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. >tags >doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a >public right of way or a permissive path. > >It does. The "yes" value for a tag means that it's a legal right of way >for that mode of transport (foot, horse, bicycle). The "permissive" value >means it isn't, it's just a permissive path. The problem is that it's not entirely clear. foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an access= tag I know this is somewhat different from general convention but the confusion is the reason that generally I have not added foot= or access= tags for footways. Cheers Andy > >Nick > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.7/1798 - Release Date: 18/11/2008 >8:59 PM ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access > >foot = yes => legal right of way >foot = permissive => permissive path > >Unfortunately, Potlatch has been adding lots of * = yes for a while by >default, so it's hard to tell whether the contributor understands the >implications of the =yes tags and removes them if they don't apply. So >I'd have more confidence in the *=permissive tags more than *=yes. The wiki seems to be very confusing on this issue. I would have interpreted this page as meaning I should add foot=yes access=permissive, rather than foot=permissive. The various other pages that talk about types of path don't seem to mention anything about the access rights, only intended purpose - e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated This confusion isn't helped by potlatch doing one thing and josm another, and I'm pretty sure that past versions of potlatch did something different as well (not sure about JOSM). And JOSM makes no mention of foot=permissive, only foot=designated. And I believe that the accepted norm has changed in recent history too. So in answer to your question about whether the contributor understands the implications of the =yes tag, I think it's a totally safe bet that most people (myself included until a few minutes ago) don't. I would volunteer to update the wiki to make it much clearer how the various types of path should be tagged, but I still don't feel I understand it all sufficiently to do this. Cheers, Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags >doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right of way or a permissive path. It does. The "yes" value for a tag means that it's a legal right of way for that mode of transport (foot, horse, bicycle). The "permissive" value means it isn't, it's just a permissive path. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Donald Allwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. > The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags > doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right > of way or a permissive path. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access foot = yes => legal right of way foot = permissive => permissive path Unfortunately, Potlatch has been adding lots of * = yes for a while by default, so it's hard to tell whether the contributor understands the implications of the =yes tags and removes them if they don't apply. So I'd have more confidence in the *=permissive tags more than *=yes. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
Hi, Gustav Foseid wrote: > To me it seems that OS is broadening it's business into the "seriously > overstating rights" trade... It seems to me that in this situation, the bad guys are not the OS but Google. Google has recently modified their terms of use, making clear that they automatically have rights to any data you display on top of Google: "11.1 Content License. (a) You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Your Content. By submitting, posting or displaying Your Content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Your Content." This means that if someone displays OS data on top of Google, he must also be entitled to grant the requested license to Google. All OS are doing is clarifying that a normal OS customer will probably *not* have the right to grant others (Google) a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free" license. This is true for OSM as well; my reading is that we must not display OSM data (say, a KML file we have generated from our data) on top of a Google map, because the above clause would then give Google rights to our data which are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. In conclusion, if someone says the OS is "reinforcing its stranglehold", then the CC-BY-SA license forces us to do the same... Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>I had some contact with the RoW officer at Cambridgeshire County Council >recently (he was pointing out that we had a footway down as a cycleway, though >it still is because I didn't think I could use his info based as it was on an >>OS base map!) Now that's an angle I'd not thought of before! So the question is, what sources of information about public rights of way are there that aren't derived from OS data? Or are the OS attempting to assert rights to this information itself, whereas in fact they only have rights to their own derivative of this information in the form of its representation on their maps? Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. tags doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a public right of way or a permissive path. Some paths I have added are permissive paths under a DEFRA scheme (valid until 2014), and not actually rights of way. There isn't an obvious way of distinguishing this from a RoW in OSM. I had an altercation with the tenant farmer on one of these as I was walking where the map said the permissive path went, but he claimed the path was actually somewhere else (he said there was too much risk of foot and mouth disease with the public walking this close to the farmyard, which would be totally irrelevant if I had some sort of right to walk there in any case. I'm not clear what 'rights' I have exactly if it isn't a RoW; I also thought it a slightly odd comment for what appeared to be an arable farm). >I tentatively arranged a lunch date with him and one of the GIS people at the >County, but never followed it up. If I do that now, do you want to come along, >Donald? After pausing briefly to think about this.why not? I'd probably learn quite a lot. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On 20/11/2008 12:58, Donald Allwright wrote: > > >From today's Guardian: > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps > > > >(not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). > > > >and the letter from OS which provoked it: > > > > >http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf > > > >David > > This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap > to exist in the first place. Indeed, my reaction precisely. > I wonder if we should respond with some > sort of marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public > institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for > their future mapping needs. In fact we should maybe even offer to > complete surveys in a particular area of any types of data that are > incomplete but which are important for the public good. One that > particularly interests me at the moment is public rights of way. I had some contact with the RoW officer at Cambridgeshire County Council recently (he was pointing out that we had a footway down as a cycleway, though it still is because I didn't think I could use his info based as it was on an OS base map!) I tentatively arranged a lunch date with him and one of the GIS people at the County, but never followed it up. If I do that now, do you want to come along, Donald? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > and the letter from OS which provoked it: > > > http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf To me it seems that OS is broadening it's business into the "seriously overstating rights" trade... (Follow up should probably go to legal-talk, cc:ed) - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
>From today's Guardian: > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps > >(not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). > >and the letter from OS which provoked it: > >http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf > >David This move is quite concerning, but underlines the need for OpenStreetMap to exist in the first place. I wonder if we should respond with some sort of marketing campaign, aimed at local authorities and other public institutions, to encourage them to use OpenStreetMap as the basis for their future mapping needs. In fact we should maybe even offer to complete surveys in a particular area of any types of data that are incomplete but which are important for the public good. One that particularly interests me at the moment is public rights of way. It's tempting to look at an OS map for public rights of way information before walking it and mapping it, however if we are mapping what we see on the ground then this shouldn't be necessary. Should a public institution express an interest in information on public rights of way in a particular square then I'd be more than happy to help collect it from the marked paths found on the ground. We could start by creating a section on the wiki providing details of how public institutions might approach the subject, and a means for conveying suitable requests to the community. Of course commercial companies might want to do this too, and although some people might have reservations about this, they are free to make donations to help OSM out! I'm reminded of how the Linux Kernel developers made an offer to hardware manufacturers a couple of years back to write drivers for them, all they had to do was ask and provide the necessary information/documentation. From what I've read this has been very successful campaign. If we as members of the OSM community can get a good reputation for responding to requests for particular types of information in the same way, then the OS will either become an irrelevance or will have to change its licensing policies. Donald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold over "derived" geographic data in the UK
From today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/20/ordnance-survey-google-maps (not reference to OpenStreetMap towards the end). and the letter from OS which provoked it: http://www.freeourdata.org.uk/docs/use-of-google-maps-for-display-and-promotion.pdf David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
