Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-legal-talk] UK mapping authority switches to Open Government Licence
At 02:47 PM 7/01/2011, David Groom wrote: - Original Message - From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open Government Licence is definitely good news for handling highly granular data. Mike with regards to the OS OpenData, the bit in the licence which I am unsure about are the following lines, taken from http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf You must always use the following attribution statement to acknowledge the source of the Information : 'Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown Copyright and database right 2011' The same attribution statements must be contained in any sublicenses of the information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same Unfortunately the line above seems to me to extend the attribution requirements required for OpenData to a much higher attribution requirement than that required by the OGL . Regards David Thanks, David. Bother. Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old problematic license. Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby. UK members of this list may like to help by reading through the UK government's general guidelines and see if anything is clearly conflicting with what they have done: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/guidance-for-information-providers.htm The best I can find so far is that the layout of the page link in David's email has this extra text not anticipated in the general guideline: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/how-to-make-information-available.htm It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector information (see below and http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/) which is varied by the following terms: Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Gates on NCN routes
At 02:48 PM 23/06/2010, Andy Sinclair wrote: What is the recommended way to identify gates on a cycle route? Is barrier=gate sufficient, or do I need to add other information regarding access? That is all I use at the moment, though sometimes putting bicycle=yes, foot=yes,motorcar=no ... when the point of the gate is filter certain types of traffic. There has also been some talk about showing whether the gate is normally open or closed. Certainly that would be useful for routing (club riders etc may want to avoid routes with closed gates), but to my mind difficult to implement as it is rather fuzzy. Locked or unlocked is another possibility, though unlikely to be an issue on a cycle route. And finally, one edge case. In Sweden, I've found lift gates that do not extend all the way across a road so that there is effectively no barrier to cyclists/pedestrians. I mark that by putting a short shared cycle track way around the gate. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Footpath numbering
And I discovered something interesting that may be applicable countrywide. A member of the Ramblers Association kindly made a definitive footpath map for me in the 1970s - hand-inked on the Otley and Ilkley OS 1:25000 sheets. As I recall, this was around the time the original PRoW survey was done. Both OS sheets were the latest available at the time but published in the 1950s ... so they are now clearly out of copyright. I wonder if the same applies to the bulk of original maps that the councils around the country hold? I have never seen one. Mike At 11:19 AM 17/03/2010, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I wouldn?t take PRoW refs from any source unless I was completely confident that it?s compatible with OSM?s license. It sounds like your Chiltern Society map is an annotated OS map, therefore unsuitable. Is it though? (I don't know, just a rhetorical question) The OS did not come up with the numbers, the council did. So how can the OS claim copyright over the numbering? Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Early Irish maps now online at National Archives
If you just like looking at maps: Early Irish maps from State Papers c.1558 - c.1610 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/irishmaps.asp Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Grauniad top 100 websites
At 12:29 PM 10/12/2009, Bob Kerr wrote: Openstreetmap made the Guardians top 100 again this year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/09/best-websites-internet Cheers Bob A rights-free map created by people like you. Remarkably detailed and precise. I wonder if we can, er, borrow that tag-line? Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] What's in a name
At 08:19 PM 15/09/2009, Chris Hill wrote: I live near Hull, its proper name of course is Kingston upon Hull. It has the long name on the map, but everyone knows it as Hull. I think it would be better to use the shorter name and adding the long name as alt_name. Any comments? Cheers, Chris Sounds good. In country tags, I've also used official_name (not in map features). They get at bit long too. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Municipal boundaries
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] UK-specific tagging for rural feature names?
At 01:53 PM 21/06/2009, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello Mike, I made one boo-boo: natural=moor should be place=moor as it is really an administrative designation. The examples in the database are place=moor. Mike Isn't a moor a natural feature though, like a heath, etc? That is what I thought when I started (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorland) but it does not quite work when collecting local names as compared to identifying natural habitat. My big thing is to collect all the often wonderful local names into OSM to help preserve usage. I am easy though if other folks differ. When I started checking all the moors around where I grew up I found that many look just like ordinary farmland and must have done so since about the eighteenth century. The names in NPE appear to more accurately reflect assigned areas for each parish to graze their sheep rather than moorland per se. Rombalds Moor for example, is made up of Ilkley Moor, a little unusual in being mostly for hunting rather than sheep farming, is definitely moorland, and then Baildon Moor, Hawksworth Moor, Addingham Moor, Steeton Moor, ... some of which are classic moorland and some grassy fields. Also in the areas around Yorkshire cities, areas can often be semi-built up but still keep the name such and such moor. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK-specific tagging for rural feature names?
Just catching up on my talk-GB email and was looking at Nick's nice new free-map. Ilkley Moor is on, so it is clearly Ideologically Sound. Thanks Nick. The Yorkshire moors look very empty though. There is a whole wealth of detail that can be added from NPE and local knowledge. Many non-population locality names though do not fit our standard tagging. I wondered what other folks are doing? Do you think tagging for local cultural practice a good or a bad thing? If yes, is anyone working on this? Do you have any favourite tags that you would like to share? Here are some I've been trying out for northern Yorkshire: natural=moor - self explanatory, I've added a couple of hundred of these if Nick wants to render them. hint, hint. :-) natural=fell - for name tagging where the sides or a side of a hill are named rather than a peak. Just a few done. natural=erratic - for large single natural stones or groups of stones whether truly glacial erratics or not. natural=cliff - Here I am doing the reverse, stretching an existing tag for mapping scars, which are often steep but not vertical or very high. historic= tumulus, stone_circle, standing_stone, mine, adit, shaft, bell_pit, industrial, road (Roman roads), house, church ... Mike At 02:48 PM 9/06/2009, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Quick update on Freemap - a countryside orientated OSM renderer covering England and Wales Sorry forgot URL (though I guess most of you are familiar) - http://www.free-map.org.uk. Also note you can add comments on a POI (e.g. pub) by clicking on it. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK-specific tagging for rural feature names?
I made one boo-boo: natural=moor should be place=moor as it is really an administrative designation. The examples in the database are place=moor. Mike At 05:22 PM 19/06/2009, Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello Mike, Just catching up on my talk-GB email and was looking at Nick's nice new free-map. Ilkley Moor is on, so it is clearly Ideologically Sound. :-) Thanks Nick. The Yorkshire moors look very empty though. There is a whole wealth of detail that can be added from NPE and local knowledge. Many non-population locality names though do not fit our standard tagging. I wondered what other folks are doing? Do you think tagging for local cultural practice a good or a bad thing? If yes, is anyone working on this? Do you have any favourite tags that you would like to share? Here are some I've been trying out for northern Yorkshire: natural=moor - self explanatory, I've added a couple of hundred of these if Nick wants to render them. hint, hint. :-) natural=fell - for name tagging where the sides or a side of a hill are named rather than a peak. Just a few done. natural=erratic - for large single natural stones or groups of stones whether truly glacial erratics or not. natural=cliff - Here I am doing the reverse, stretching an existing tag for mapping scars, which are often steep but not vertical or very high. historic= tumulus, stone_circle, standing_stone, mine, adit, shaft, bell_pit, industrial, road (Roman roads), house, church ... These sound good ideas. Must update the Freemap rendering (as you say) to reflect many of these as they would make some of the more upland rural areas more interesting on the map. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] How to tag floating duck islands?
Has anyone mapped this one yet? http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/mps-duck-island-folly-exposed-on-google-earth/2009/05/22/1242498910263.html Mike Caveat: My lawyer only allowed me to post this if I point out that as the data is from Google Earth, we cannot use it in OpenStreetMap. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Pateley Bridge mapping party 7th June 2009 with the AGI Northern Group SIG
Grand! There are certainly some excellent walks in the area, alas all done in my dark pre-GPS past. If any one is interested in industrial archeaology, the area to the north of the road between Pately Bridge and Greenhow Hill is full of old lead mines, and, at least when I last went there, has ruined smelt mills and the like. Greenhow Hill itself is the site of Roman silver and lead mining. I've mapped the eating places on the west side of the town but haven't been in the centre. From that I recommend looking at (all mapped http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.08531lon=-1.76063zoom=17layers=0B00FTF): - The Bridge Inn, slightly north of town on the Low Wath Road. Yes, it is a pub but has a watermill in the ground and, as I recall, outdoor eating area, so may be kid friendly. - For picnics, the park by the river (mapped green area), you may well get your own live band in the bandstand on a summer Sunday. The universe famous Otley Silver Band plays there. - The Lemon Meringue Tea Rooms - looks OK, may be small. Mike At 15:20 24/04/2009, Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: Hi Folks, been on the cards for a while, but we've decided on a location, Pateley Bridge, in North Yorkshire, a nice little place, with the UK's oldest sweet shop, apparently! All welcome, the more the merrier. The surrounding area needs mapping too, and there should be excellent walks nearby. Sunday 7th June, for one day http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pateley_Bridge_Mapping_Party If there's enough interest, lift shares / minibuses could be arranged. It's being run In collaboration with the AGI Northern Group - sign up on the OSM wiki, but also (its free!) sign up on the groups event page http://www.agi.org.uk/sig/north so they can get accurate numbers. Also, it's got 4 CPD points, for those doing profession development / or going for their Chartered Geographer. If you know the area, we are after a nice family friendly venue to meet for the day, perhaps a cafe? We may also be getting the loan of some GPS units from the Environment Agency. Cheers! Tim ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] [Announcement] Mid-Anglia local talk list
There is now a talk-gb-midanglia. Thank you to David Earl for initiating and hosting this forum. This is intended as a low-volume local area list for Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Suffolk and Essex. You can subscribe at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb-midanglia and I'll add an GB local list section to the wiki anon if you want to find it later. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Unsurfaced road and Byway?
At 11:08 AM 16/12/2007, Abigail Brady wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 9:37 AM, Mike Collinson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An unsurfaced road should simply be a road with the surface tag set: highway=secondary surface=unpaved That's not to say some non-Map Features tags are being supported. If so, I've never heard of either of them and suggest not using them. Byway is probably for UK as it has a specific legal meaning there. Whether it be a good decision or bad, highway=unsurfaced *is* on map_features. Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I knew that page by heart so I checked and found it was added by user Steve8 on 30th September. It has not gone through the consultative and voting process so I'd like to remove it unless anyone has any objections? I can see that it has limited value inside in parts of Europe were such things are not common, but confusing for anyone else. No harm in using it, but it should not be on Map Features. gets off high horse Mike Stockholm ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Unsurfaced road and Byway?
At 05:23 PM 16/12/2007, Abigail Brady wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 2:38 PM, Mike Collinson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for pointing that out. I thought I knew that page by heart so I checked and found it was added by user Steve8 on 30th September. It has not gone through the consultative and voting process so I'd like to remove it unless anyone has any objections? I can see that it has limited value inside in parts of Europe were such things are not common, but confusing for anyone else. No harm in using it, but it should not be on Map Features. gets off high horse Are you going to re-tag every way in the database that uses this?. Nope, everyone is free to use whatever tag they want. Same goes for rendering. If its useful locally in the UK that is fine, but it should not suddenly appear on the Map Features page, certainly not without discussion/voting. If it was used during early mapping, a depreciated note would an alternative. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Online POI editor for place mapping party-usabilityenhancements
At 06:11 PM 18/05/2007, Nick Whitelegg wrote: If I proceed, I can select hamlet but the Full Tags still do not refresh. Hitting Go! or Cancel seem to do nothing and I cannot get rid of the yellow box even panning out of the area and back. Mike, When this happens is there an error in the JavaScript console? Nick Sorry for the delay, haven't been able to get data from OSM. I've also unfortunately upgraded from Firefox 1.5 to 2.0.0.3 but the issue remains. I can't get any consistent and repeatable error messages coming up (i.e. so that I can tell you that when I click A, message B comes up). The only message appearing at all in the error console is: popup has no properties http://www.openlayers.org/dev/lib/OpenLayers/Map.js line: 619 This *appears* to be only happening when I click the Cancel button on boxes that have got stuck on the screen. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-gb
