Re: [Talk-GB] Municipal boundaries
If all else fails, have we considered the option of reverse- engineering our own text-based definitions from the OS-derived data, following a clean room approach (i.e. one person writes the text by reference to the OS map, and passes it on to someone else who plots it on OSM)? Yes, following the most paranoid interpretation of copyright law, it is still a derived work. But if the councils themselves (and/or the Boundary Commission) are telling us that the OS-derived data is the de- facto definition of the boundary, then - in the theoretical case that OS contests our use of the data - OS would be acting well outside of their capacity as a collector of data, and starting to claim copyright on facts instead. I know this probably sounds like the classic Sure we're allowed to use this data, it's not like anyone's going to complain argument, but intuitively I think this is different, and I reckon someone sufficiently qualified could make a sound legal argument for it that will, in all probability, never be contested. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2009-March/003607.html puts it best - pushing the boundaries and seeing when they squeal - and this would be very mild push indeed. - Matt On 15 Jul 2009, at 13:39, Mike Collinson wrote: I don't know whether this has been explored before, but a tit-bit from Bob Barr who gave a SOTM key note last year and enjoyed himself so he came again. Bob is councillor in ?Warrington and once asked all the councils in the greater Manchester area for boundary data. All supplied him OS- derived data except Stockport which gave him a copy of original definition which is text based (The boundary goes down the centre of WhatNot Street and then turns left along Kirk Lane ...) and therefore free of OS copyright issues. Each area in the country should have one of these document BEFORE the information is transcribed into coordinates. He suggests asking the Boundary Commission under the Freedom of Information Act for the whole set. As far as I can tell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Commissions_%28United_Kingdom%29 , there is one Commission for England http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp , one for Scotland etc. Anyone tried this? Anyone game? Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Counties and coasts
On 22 Jun 2009, at 14:45, Chris Hill wrote: I understand that councils are responsible for the beach so the county could be said to extend beyond what we currently mark as the coastline. Does anyone know where council boundaries actually end with respect to the sea and coastline? Entirely wild speculation, but logically I'd assume they ought to extend to the 12 mile boundary beyond the coastline which the UK claims as territorial waters... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-mile_limit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand - Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Event: A New Cycle Map for Oxford, 22nd January 2009
On 18 Jan 2009, at 15:04, Gregory wrote: What happened to Oxford University using OpenStreetMap? They still have it live (without attribution): http://www.ox.ac.uk/applications/dynamic/map.rm?location=Trinity%20Collegeid=486postcode=OX2+6UD But the college pages link to a google maps implementation: http://www.ox.ac.uk/colleges/colleges_and_halls_az/trinity.html Hi, This was covered on talk-gb just over a year ago... http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2007-December/thread.html#2592 In short - it was due to the availability of more accurate data (for the markers - there was no issue with the accuracy of OSM itself) via the OXPOINTS project http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/oxpoints/. The Google map was produced as part of that project, independently of the overall website development, and the Powers That Be elected to go with it as a ready-made solution rather than integrating it into the OSM map. (Incidentally, I do see an attribution on the original page - Mapping data provided by OpenStreetMap under an open license. That's correct isn't it?) - Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Mini mapping party in Abingdon [Oxfordshire], anyone?
On 23 Sep 2008, at 13:33, Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: Abingdon in Oxfordshire is heavily infested with dragons. Would any heroic .uk/.ie/.elsewhere OSMers out there be willing to help drive them off, in principle? Count me in - it must be pretty much the only public-transport- accessible place left to do around here! - Matt ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] oxford uni is not using OSM anymore
On 13 Dec 2007, at 10:47, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: [quoting OUCS] The reason (I understand) they removed OSM for maps of where colleges are is that the data was wrong - the database of the lat/long or postcode or whatever for each college was not right. Where that data came from I have no idea. By way of filling in the gaps, I should clarify that this particular data wasn't sourced from OSM - this was supplied by Oxford either as lat/long coordinates where available, or postcodes otherwise (which were then converted to lat/long via NPEMap). One would assume that the postcode-based data was the source of the inaccuracy that they had issues with. Clearly, it wouldn't have been an enormous task to improve this with the aid of either OSM or OXPOINTS data, but given that OUCS had a working solution based on Google Maps ready to roll, this was the path of least resistance (and cost) that they ultimately went for. Hopefully that clears up any outstanding questions, although obviously don't treat what I say as a substitute for an official statement from the Public Affairs directorate at Oxford... Cheers, - Matthew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] How do I tag this cyckeway?
On 16 Aug 2007, at 14:36, Rik van der Helm wrote: I doubt whetter Dave's whole 'route' fits in 'highway=cycleway', where it is reserved for 'cycleways exclusive for cycles'. His posting makes clear the route is mainly shared use. So Dave will have a hell of a job defining all those highways he's running along like residential/service/track/tertiary/bridleway. I'm not so sure that you can always piggyback cycle routes on top of existing 'highway' ways anyhow - I've encountered NCN routes and signposted walking routes that follow a residential street for some its length and then turn off down a side alley. This makes me think that ultimately the most appropriate solution might be to define a new way for each designated route, sharing the same segments as the underlying roads - or at least it would be if our editors were better at representing / editing overlapping ways... - Matthew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
