Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Warin]

On 5/9/19 12:26 am, Jez Nicholson wrote:
The curse of derived data! So much effort to be able to share the 
boundary of a property. **sigh**



If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine.




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

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)

[Owen Boswarva]

As far as I know Ordnance Survey's theory of derived data has never been
tested in court. However there's an upcoming High Court decision (arising
from a dispute between 77M Ltd and OS) that might shed some light.


On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 23:42, Edward Bainton  wrote:

The idea of asking a ranger to trace the boundary (on a printout of a
> thoroughly detailed OSM, of course:  better get to work...) is a great one.
> iirc, the boundaries are all pretty major geographical features, so
> hopefully fairly easy. But yes, Jez, what a faff.
>
> Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one
> legally speaking?  I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in
> the derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered.
>
> Obviously whether OS have over-egged or not it is a wholly different
> question from whether, if they have, OSM would want to challenge them - I'm
> asking from a theoretical pov only.
> ___
> 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

[Talk-GB] How do I switch off digests?

[Edward Bainton]

Any way to get single emails from this list rather than a daily (ahem..)
digest? It was an option when I signed up but I can't see how to change it
after registration. (Tried by following the the subscribe/unsubscribe page
but it's not the right place.)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)

[Edward Bainton]

The idea of asking a ranger to trace the boundary (on a printout of a
thoroughly detailed OSM, of course:  better get to work...) is a great one.
iirc, the boundaries are all pretty major geographical features, so
hopefully fairly easy. But yes, Jez, what a faff.

Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one
legally speaking?  I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in
the derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered.

Obviously whether OS have over-egged or not it is a wholly different
question from whether, if they have, OSM would want to challenge them - I'm
asking from a theoretical pov only.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Rob Nickerson]

Hi,

In previous conversations with the OS they were keen to point out the "Free
to use data" page.

This one's very wordy but it comes down to how "drawn by the charity,
albeit over an OS base" actually occurred. If it didn't trace over any OS
feature then the "Free to use data" page may apply. If it partly overlaps a
feature then I'm unclear. Either way maybe this is something OSM UK should
be flagging with the geospatial commission.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/free-to-use-data.html

@Jez: you may want to add this to the wiki page as well.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Showgrounds (tagging)

[SK53]

Hi Ian,

Judging by this

the government (Valuation Office) has also come to that conclusion. Some
interesting snippets about how showgrounds developed in the text. Anyway
I'd agree that  landuse=commercial may also be appropriate, and will
probably depend on local conditions. For instance Rutland sold-off the
original showground for housing, so are presumably cash rich, but  don't
think they have many big events so the grounds are used by sports clubs.


Jery

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 21:11, Ian Caldwell 
wrote:

> For the  Three Counties Showground in Malvern
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35432806 is tagged with
> landuse=commercial. Any given the number of events there most of which are
> commercial. Commercial would be correct. That how the NEC is mapped
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243830271.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 20:55, SK53  wrote:
>
>> I just came across  an
>> agricultural showground tagged as leisure=park and realised I didn't know
>> what a sensible way to retag it would be. Although there are a limited
>> number in the UK (perhaps 100 or so) they do tend to be quite prominent and
>> when major events take place at them (e.g., Scout Jamborees, National
>> Eisteddfod) good tagging can be useful. I recall Richard Bullock mapping
>> the Royal Cheshire quite a few years ago as it helped parents pick up their
>> children after the scout Jamboree.
>>
>> Various (inconsistent) approaches have been used:
>>
>> * Newark  & Norfolk
>>  mapped as tourism=attraction
>> * Rutland  as
>> leisure=recreation_ground (there are certainly sports pitches here out of
>> events)
>> * Royal Cheshire  as
>> amenity=showground with landuse=grass.
>>
>> It strikes me that how grounds are a special type of events venue and
>> perhaps rather than using amenity=showground it may be better to use
>> amenity=events_venue with a subtag events_venue=showground. leisure &
>> tourism tags may still be applicable, and landuse=grass can still be (mis-)
>> used to show the area (see Newark & Royal Cheshire). Alternatives might be
>> amenity=exhibition_centre, but this seems more for places like the NEC. The
>> current wiki description circumscribes events venues fairly closely, so
>> this would be an extension in meaning.
>>
>> I don't think anything in the UK (or Europe) is quite on the scale of the 
>> Minnesota
>> State Fair  which certainly
>> merits tourism=attraction.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> Any thoughts,
>>
>> Jerry
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] Showgrounds (tagging)

[Ian Caldwell via Talk-GB]

For the  Three Counties Showground in Malvern
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35432806 is tagged with
landuse=commercial. Any given the number of events there most of which are
commercial. Commercial would be correct. That how the NEC is mapped
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243830271.

Ian


On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 20:55, SK53  wrote:

> I just came across  an
> agricultural showground tagged as leisure=park and realised I didn't know
> what a sensible way to retag it would be. Although there are a limited
> number in the UK (perhaps 100 or so) they do tend to be quite prominent and
> when major events take place at them (e.g., Scout Jamborees, National
> Eisteddfod) good tagging can be useful. I recall Richard Bullock mapping
> the Royal Cheshire quite a few years ago as it helped parents pick up their
> children after the scout Jamboree.
>
> Various (inconsistent) approaches have been used:
>
> * Newark  & Norfolk
>  mapped as tourism=attraction
> * Rutland  as
> leisure=recreation_ground (there are certainly sports pitches here out of
> events)
> * Royal Cheshire  as
> amenity=showground with landuse=grass.
>
> It strikes me that how grounds are a special type of events venue and
> perhaps rather than using amenity=showground it may be better to use
> amenity=events_venue with a subtag events_venue=showground. leisure &
> tourism tags may still be applicable, and landuse=grass can still be (mis-)
> used to show the area (see Newark & Royal Cheshire). Alternatives might be
> amenity=exhibition_centre, but this seems more for places like the NEC. The
> current wiki description circumscribes events venues fairly closely, so
> this would be an extension in meaning.
>
> I don't think anything in the UK (or Europe) is quite on the scale of the 
> Minnesota
> State Fair  which certainly
> merits tourism=attraction.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry
>
> Any thoughts,
>
> Jerry
> ___
> 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

[Talk-GB] Showgrounds (tagging)

[SK53]

I just came across  an
agricultural showground tagged as leisure=park and realised I didn't know
what a sensible way to retag it would be. Although there are a limited
number in the UK (perhaps 100 or so) they do tend to be quite prominent and
when major events take place at them (e.g., Scout Jamborees, National
Eisteddfod) good tagging can be useful. I recall Richard Bullock mapping
the Royal Cheshire quite a few years ago as it helped parents pick up their
children after the scout Jamboree.

Various (inconsistent) approaches have been used:

* Newark  & Norfolk
 mapped as tourism=attraction
* Rutland  as
leisure=recreation_ground (there are certainly sports pitches here out of
events)
* Royal Cheshire  as
amenity=showground with landuse=grass.

It strikes me that how grounds are a special type of events venue and
perhaps rather than using amenity=showground it may be better to use
amenity=events_venue with a subtag events_venue=showground. leisure &
tourism tags may still be applicable, and landuse=grass can still be (mis-)
used to show the area (see Newark & Royal Cheshire). Alternatives might be
amenity=exhibition_centre, but this seems more for places like the NEC. The
current wiki description circumscribes events venues fairly closely, so
this would be an extension in meaning.

I don't think anything in the UK (or Europe) is quite on the scale of
the Minnesota
State Fair  which certainly
merits tourism=attraction.

Regards,

Jerry

Any thoughts,

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps

[Jez Nicholson]

The curse of derived data! So much effort to be able to share the boundary
of a property. **sigh**

I added some words to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_license  Feel free
to amend and/or question (in the discussion page).

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:54 PM David Woolley 
wrote:

> On 03/09/2019 12:31, Edward Bainton wrote:
> > I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes
> > of countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use,
> > showing the extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes
> > with flags indicating Crown copyright thus:
> >
> > /Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. ©Crown
> > copyright and database rights 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey
> > licence number 6035/
>
> This sounds like a Land Registry or Planning map.  They are probably
> breaching the licence by even showing it to outsiders.  The red line
> will have been traced relative to OS features.
>
> I would say definitely off limits, as this is the sort of map from which
> OS is now funded.
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Talk-GB] RNLI Dunkirk Memorial

[Andy Mabbett]

On 04/09/2019, Edward Catmur  wrote:

> Adding a natural=bare_rock  tag to reflect the exposed bedrock underneath
> (yes, chalk is a rock) would seem acceptable

The Margate memorial is painted conrete.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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