Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

[Chris Hill]

Robert,

thanks for chasing the East Riding of Yorkshire council to receive their 
rights of way data licenced as OGL. I failed to get this but your 
tenacity, knowledge and skilful wording made the difference. Thanks again.


Chris


On 30/05/2018 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

On 30 May 2018 at 11:37, Adam Snape  wrote:

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.

That sounds great. Some time ago I was planning to do something
similar, but have been side-tracked by other projects and have never
found the time. This is as far as I got:
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/open-data


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.

Indeed. Also, the Environmental Information Regulations (which PRoW
GIS data probably fall under, rather than FOI, though FOI Publication
Schemes still apply) also includes provision for councils to
proactively digitise and publish environmental data they hold --
whether requested or not-- but they don't seem to be making much
progress with this...

Anyway, Adam, I've just sent you a longer private message with some
more thoughts you might be interested in.

Robert.



--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

[Nick Whitelegg]

(Adam - apologies for not quoting, but this email client performs the annoying 
habit of top-posting and haven't figured out a way to get it to do standard 
quotes).


So, just to clarify, taking my local authority (Hampshire) as an example, does 
this page _definitely_ confirm that their RoW data is available under OGL?


https://www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/opendatasearch/publicrightsofway

Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do something 
with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local county.

Thanks,

Nick



From: Adam Snape 
Sent: 30 May 2018 11:37:47
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); talk-gb
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

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 
mailto: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