Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route
Ok cool, so i can pretend that 'route=recreation' exists and that it renders at the same zoom level as NCN and that is purpose is to map signed recreation routes that are NOT road cycling designated. And specicially for nationally confusing trails, such as the 'Trans Canada Trail'. I'll work on some documentation on the wiki (if its not done already) Athough 'NSN' National Smooth Network' gets my vote :-) cheers, Sam On 5/11/10, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: Serious Cyclists... Oh, yes, your absolutely right. If you've got panniers attached you _must_ be so much more serious than anybody else. (Cycling Active magazine keeps running features on it) but no-one else has ever even heard of it. That says more about the magazine its minimal clique readership. -- I agree it needs a separate designation. Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
Couple of comments on this in addition to the responses by others. 1. The definitive information is not always on a map. For instance, local footpath rights of way can be found in text form in many libraries. Its pretty easy to then correlate the description information with a walk of a particular path. Don't be surprised to find there are mismatches. 2. Although local authorities are responsible for maintaining public footpaths not all treat them in the same way. I know for a fact that the OS does not survey footpath changes outside of urban areas, so again the definitive information will be with the LA, and it might be in text form or it might be on an OS map (or both). My best advice is to pop into your local library first and see what they have. Their docs may be a bit out of date but is a good and easy place to start and you can always go back to the LA with any queries. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ian Spencer Sent: 11 May 2010 10:55 AM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source (Newbie alert!!) I suspect this has been discussed before, but it seems to me that there is a big hole in open source mapping, and that is getting hold of definitive maps in electronic form to be able to document them. I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be freely available. (???!!!) What I am interested in is the gaps between the footpaths people recognise and those which are registered on the definitive lists as there is a deadline in around 10 years for getting missing paths registered. I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released? I've read the tagging controversy and it seems there is a lack of finality on tagging - is there anyone trying to resolve this? In the end, only the OS maps seem to have legal status, but they aren't releasing footpaths :( Anyway, just off for some Coast to Coast cycling... Cheers! Spenny No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10 19:40:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB) Sent: 11 May 2010 11:43 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn i...@dynoyo.plus.com wrote: In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS layer. But for each parish, they also publish a text description of each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. Useful as not all real-world physical signs have the number. So using that with the NPE layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the present ROWs. Anyone see any problems with this method? If the textural descriptions (known as the Definitive Statement) have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging to OS. Having read quite a few of these I've yet to see any real evidence that the statement has been prepared from a map. Each time I've looked that them to me the read the other way around, that someone has translated the statement onto the map. The reason I say this is because sometimes the maps miss some of the subtle detail described in the statement. Bearing in mind that the statements form part of the legal paper chase between the LA and the landowner and lawyers always tend to work with words, I'm confident that statements dont include OS data. I also consider statements fair game, and have added all the footpath referencing for my local area by reference to them, though for the route on the ground I only trust the GPS and the physical way marked or trodden route. I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take. On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data. Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of the current public rights of way. My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the changes that have occurred periodically with time. Updates in my area seem to be about every 20 years or so. Cheers Andy -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10 19:40:00 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
James Davis wrote on 12/05/2010 10:05: Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the changes that have occurred periodically with time. Updates in my area seem to be about every 20 years or so. This looks like it varies a lot by area. I recently went to view the definitive map for our area and it was a bit of a mishmash. Everything is currently on paper, with no electronic records at all and I'm not at all convinced that there's any clear separation between data that belongs to the OS and data that belongs to the local authority. I spotted no differences between the data on the definitive map and the latest OS mapping of the area, but there are still plenty of inconsistencies to be found: - I've found rights of way referred to in other council documents that aren't marked on either. - I've found accessible and open footpaths that clearly at some stage, by their construction, were being maintained by the local authority but aren't recorded. - I've found rights of way that terminate at a parish boundary, with the physical track on the ground continuing and being open to users, but with no records of where the right of way disappeared to. Having access to the prow data would be great but I'm no longer convinced by it's definitiveness :) James _ Having done a little more background reading it strikes me that OSM and public involvement might be the solution that the Rights of Way review is looking for. The 2026 cut off date for the footpath review is on hold as basically the government department gave up trying to rationalise the pre-1949 paths and they are going to report back at some point. In other words, I think it has dawned on the Government that it is not convinced by its definitiveness either, James Ian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Mini mapping party - Glasgow Sat 22 May
Little note to say: Mini-Mapping Party - Glasgow - Saturday 22 May 10.30am at the Centre of Contemporary Arts (Electron Club), 350 Sauchiehall Street http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_Party/Glasgow all welcome! Tim From: talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:00:09 +0100 Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to talk-gb@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-gb-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-gb-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)) 2. Re: National Byway cycle route (Dave F.) 3. Re: National Byway cycle route (Sam Vekemans) 4. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)) 5. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)) 6. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (James Davis) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:43:09 +0100 From: Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB) robert.whittaker+osm-talk...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: aanlktilfdm75jmvdnmqlgj9voevyv9qnnubysqbnc...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn i...@dynoyo.plus.com wrote: In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS layer. ?But for each parish, they also publish a text description of each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. ?Useful as not all real-world physical signs have the number. ?So using that with the NPE layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the present ROWs. Anyone see any problems with this method? If the textural descriptions (known as the Definitive Statement) have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging to OS. I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take. On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data. Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of the current public rights of way. -- Robert Whittaker -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:06:19 +0100 From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route To: Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Cc: OSM - Talk GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: 4be9e2eb.2090...@madasafish.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Richard Fairhurst wrote: Serious Cyclists... Oh, yes, your absolutely right. If you've got panniers attached you _must_ be so much more serious than anybody else. (Cycling Active magazine keeps running features on it) but no-one else has ever even heard of it. That says more about the magazine its minimal clique readership. -- I agree it needs a separate designation. Dave F. -- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:16:43 -0700 From: Sam Vekemans acrosscanadatra...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route To: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com Cc: OSM - Talk GB talk-gb@openstreetmap.org,Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Message-ID: aanlktilpir3qqlitrnt7xt3xtq8ftzjoh9-k7xary...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ok cool, so i can pretend that 'route=recreation' exists and that it renders at the same zoom level as NCN and that is purpose is to map signed recreation routes that are NOT road cycling designated. And specicially for nationally confusing trails, such as the 'Trans Canada Trail'. I'll work on some documentation on the wiki (if its not done already) Athough 'NSN' National Smooth Network' gets my vote :-) cheers, Sam On
