Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
Hi All, As the quarterly project has just been announced I thought I'd provide an update on my progress with systematically contacting councils regarding PRoW data. I'm trying to get as many as possible released, up-to-date, under a clear unambiguous OGL3 licence and pro-actively published by the councils (thus removing the need to repeat the process a couple of years down the line. As you can imagine it's a large task, so the time taken to do it and the speed of local government action means that in many cases results won't be useable until after the quarterly project. That said, progress so far is encouraging, I've checked or contacted all the county councils and I've started working my way through the Metropolitan Boroughs/Unitary Authorities. The responses I've had back have mostly been fairly encouraging (a minority less than encouraging!), I've had quite a few updated or new datasets, OGL licences and Open Data releases, some of which I have already sent to Barry at Rowmaps, I have a few more which I'll send in the coming days. Perhaps most encouragingly a surprisingly high proportion (albeit probably still a minority) have committed to proactively publish their data in the coming months. Finally, In the coming days I'll update Rob Whittaker with my progress so that his PRoW OpenData table ( http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/open-data/ ) so that it can be updated. Kind regards, Adam Snape On 1 June 2018 at 09:10, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > Hello Adam, > > That's great - that will be very useful. > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > -- > *From:* Adam Snape > *Sent:* 31 May 2018 19:07:05 > *To:* Nick Whitelegg > *Cc:* Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); Talk GB > > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data > > Hi Nick, > > Yes Hampshire's data is unambiguously available for use under OGL3. > > Kind regards > > Adam > > On Thu, 31 May 2018, 09:52 Nick Whitelegg, > wrote: > > > > (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 o
Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
Hello Adam, That's great - that will be very useful. Thanks, Nick From: Adam Snape Sent: 31 May 2018 19:07:05 To: Nick Whitelegg Cc: Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); Talk GB Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data Hi Nick, Yes Hampshire's data is unambiguously available for use under OGL3. Kind regards Adam On Thu, 31 May 2018, 09:52 Nick Whitelegg, mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>> wrote: (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 mailto:adam.c.sn...@gmail.com>> 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<mailto: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] Council Footpath data
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
(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<mailto: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] Council Footpath data
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. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
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 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
Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
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
Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
On 24 May 2018 at 14:33, Nick Whiteleggwrote: > Following on from the recent topic regarding 1900 historical footpath data, > I'd like to clarify exactly what we can and can't do currently with the > council RoWs if possible. > > a) Copy designation status from council data to OSM? > > b) Trace an entire RoW from the council data onto OSM? Using any data is ok legally if and only if it's available under a suitable licence. Whether it's desirable to use it depends on its accuracy and completeness. For rights of way, there are generally three types of data/information available from councils that we might want to use: * The Definitive Map -- usually lines showing the Rights of Way drawn on top of an Ordnance Survey (OS) base map. * The Definitive Statement -- a narrative description of each Right of Way * Electronic GIS data containing the routes of each Right of Way. The Definitive Map and Statement form the legal record of Rights of Way. They're "Definitive" in that if a route is included there it is legally Right of Way, even if there's a mistake. So apart from discrepancies between the two documents, they don't contain errors by definition. (Though they can be incomplete, i.e. there could be Rights of Way that aren't recorded in them.) The GIS data (that most councils have created) is based on digitising the routes from the Definitive Map. This dataset is usually not the legal record, and could contain transcription errors or be out of date. In terms of permitted usage in OSM, the Definitive Maps are off-limits because OS claims copyright over derived maps. However, OS doesn't claim any rights in the Definitive Statement, and OS does allow councils to release the GIS data (without the underlying base maps) even though it was derived from OS mapping originally. Therefore, if a council can be persuaded to supply and suitably licence the Definitive Statement and GIS data, then it can be used in OSM. The licence needs to be compatible with the ODbL. The standard Open Government Licence v3 (OGL3) meets this requirement, but be wary of councils still releasing stuff under the now-obsolete OS OpenData Licence that was not compatible with the ODbL. I have a (very incomplete table of which councils have released what under appropriate licences at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/open-data -- any help to update this would be appreciated.) In terms desirable usage in OSM, I would generally assume that the GIS data is an accurate representation of the Definitive Map, particularly if it is consistent with the Definitive Statement. Therefore you could in principle use it to armchair map Rights of Way from scratch. However, I'd say this generally isn't a good idea, as you'd not be able to include any of the physical characteristics of the route, and wouldn't know if/how it crossed any field boundaries, ditches, streams etc. Just because a route is a Right of Way, doesn't mean it's physically usable on the ground. On the other hand, if a route is already mapped as a highway of some sort (or can be so mapped from licenced aerial imagery), and aligns with a route in the GIS data or as described in the Definitive Statement, I would encourage people to add appropriate designation=*, prow_ref=*, and access tags. If the route on the ground differs from the Definitive Line, then I'd recommend mapping both as separate ways: one as the physical path/track that exists for people to use, and one as the legal line of the right of way. My thoughts on appropriate tagging can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Table In case anyone hasn't seen it, I've got a tool for comparing councils' GIS data to OSM mapping at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/progress/ . The matching is based on tagging OSM ways with designation=* and prow_ref=* (so it doesn't explicitly look for non-tagged highways that might line up with RoWs in the council data) and it doesn't check the matched routes line up apart from a check on the overall length and bounding box of each RoW. There are only 8 authorities listed there at the moment. At the time those were the only ones that I knoew of that had released their GIS data under the OGL. I know a few more have since, but I haven't got round to adding them. If anyone would like any new authorities added that have released their data under the OGL, then please get in touch. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb