Re: [Talk-GB] INSPIRE Polygons spatial data

[Owen Boswarva]

In what way do you think the Land Registry licence has been adjusted? That
wording has been in place for some time.

It is possible Land Registry will change their licence in July, as Ordnance
Survey are changing the terms under which public sector organisations can
share their derived data in property extents.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/tools-support/open-mastermap-programme/opening-up-property-extents



On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 15:49, Christian Ledermann <
christian.lederm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Reading through the inspire land registry data, it seems they have adjusted
> their licence:
> What would that mean for use in OSM?
>
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/inspire-index-polygons-spatial-data#conditions-of-use
>
> Conditions of use
>
> Your use of the INSPIRE Index Polygons service is governed by conditions.
>
> The INSPIRE Index Polygons and attributes provided in this service are
> available for use and reuse under the Open Government Licence (OGL)
> .
> This licence enables public bodies to make their data available free of
> charge for reuse.
>
> Use under the OGL is free. If you fail to comply with any of the
> conditions of the OGL then the rights granted to you under the licence
> will end automatically.
>
> Under the OGL, when reusing the data you must acknowledge the source of
> the data and include the following attribution statement:
>
> This information is subject to Crown copyright and is reproduced with the
> permission of HM Land Registry.
>
> If you are reusing the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely
> x, y co-ordinates), you must also display the following Ordnance Survey
> copyright/database right notice:
>
> © Crown copyright and database rights [year of supply or date of
> publication] Ordnance Survey 100026316.
>
> You must provide a link to these conditions, where possible.
>
> Under the OGL, HM Land Registry permits you to use the data for
> commercial or non-commercial purposes. However, as the licence says, OGL does
> not cover the use of third party rights which we are not authorised to
> license. HM Land Registry uses Ordnance Survey data in the preparation of
> the polygons and you will need to comply with Ordnance Survey licensing
> terms for use of the polygons (including the associated geometry, namely
> x,y co-ordinates).
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian Ledermann
>
> Newark-on-Trent - UK
> Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
> https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
> <*)))>{
>
> If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
> you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
> you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
> 1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
> 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
> 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
> }<(((*>
> ___
> 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] Import of UK SSSI data

[Owen Boswarva]

My view on the licensing question:

Very many geographic datasets published by UK public bodies contain data
derived from MasterMap or other OS products used under the Public Sector
Mapping Agreement. If the public body has published the data under the Open
Government Licence, and includes OS rights in the attribution statement,
then it's reasonable to assume they have obtained the necessary permission
through OS's "Presumption to Publish" process. Users don't have to confirm
that with OS themselves.

For more discussion on this point see the recent High Court judgment in 77m
Ltd vs Ordnance Survey, from paragraph 255:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2019/3007.html

Owen


On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 17:56, SK53  wrote:

A few things:
>
>-  A number of SSSI's are mapped
>
> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=site_of_special_scientific_interest#values>
>as many are co-incident with various types of Nature Reserves, although
>sometimes there are minor differences in boundaries. For instance the SSSI
>at Newhouse Farm National Nature Reserve is smaller than the NNR.
>- SSSIs are not nature reserves, so protected area is correct. A
>designation, protect_class etc should be considered.
>-  As some are already mapped, any import would need to detect
>collisions & potentially do some quite complex processing if the SSSI is
>not coincident with the element currently tagged with that information.
>This needs to documented. I note that at least one SSSI lies within another
>on OSM which is possibly inaccurate, or reflects historical change (merging
>of 2 SSSIs).
>-  Document which transforms are used to convert from OSGB
>co-ordinates. I suspect we have 3 potential ones in use EPSG:27700, OSTN02
>and OSTN15, see this
><https://www.bnhs.co.uk/focuson/grabagridref/html/OSGB.pdf> (lengthy)
>doc from the OS.
>-  What is the purpose of adding these to OSM? If they get rendered
>and show up on private land which is not accessible this may have
>undesirable consequences. For 90% of all my purposes I only want SSSIs as
>an overlay and find using the native data from NE/SNH/NRW either as a
>separate layer in QGIS or as discrete tables in PostGIS is perfectly fine.
>The major gripe is having to get data from 3 separate sources (it would be
>4 if NI ASSIs were available as open data).
>-  Virtually all of NE (and SNH & NRW) data is created against
>MasterMap and therefore contains OSGB material. I think, but cannot be
>certain, that NE obtained the necessary permissions for this data to be
>freely usable. Owen Boswarva who occasionally contributes to the list may
>know the actual position rather better than me. To date I have relied on
>personal knowledge or survey for things like NNRs and LNRs rather than
>consulting the NE shape files. (There's a reasonable write-up on Rowmaps as
>to how this pertains to footpath data and the PSMA, but, again, I'm not
>sure under what type of agreement NE licences OSGB dat)
>-  SSSIs change (although perhaps not as much as nature reserves), the
>most notorious being the dunes at Menie: if data are imported there needs
>to be some plan w.r.t. maintenance.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 16:34, Henry Bush 
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm, I see. I'll dig further into the licensing side of things before I
>> go any further.
>>
>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>
>> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 16:28 Chris Hill,  wrote:
>>
>>> I think there may be a problem here. The web page describing the data
>>> says "© Natural England copyright. Contains Ordnance Survey data". Many
>>> public bodies suffer from the viral OS copyright problem, where the data is
>>> based on OS mapping data and OS have claimed copyright over the geodata
>>> element of such data in the past.
>>>
>>> You need to be sure this is not the case before you use any of these
>>> datasets in OSM.
>>>
>>> --
>>> cheers
>>> Chris Hill (chillly)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16/11/2019 15:30, Henry Bush wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, yes, the source of the data is the Natural England API:
>>>
>>> https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80
>>>
>>> https://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f10cbb4425154bfda349ccf493487a80_0/
>>>
>>> The data is freely usable, so there shouldn't be any licensing issues.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 15:24, Philip Barnes 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What is the sourc

Re: [Talk-GB] Neighbourhood/LSOA Names

[Owen Boswarva]

Hi Steve,

Do you mean this? https://visual.parliament.uk/msoanames

Recently completed, but the House of Commons Library did request suggested
names back in January when it was in draft.

Owen


On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 18:34, Steve Doerr  wrote:

Does anyone recognize this? A few months ago, I remember visiting a
> website that was looking to crowdsource meaningful names for
> neighbourhoods. I think it was based on Census Output Areas, probably at
> the LSOA level. It had a map showing the boundaries of the areas, and
> they had preloaded suggested names for each one (possibly based on ward
> names?). You could click on an area and suggest a better name based on
> your local knowledge.
>
> I'd be interested to find that website again. Or anything similar.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
> ___
> 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] 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

Re: [Talk-GB] OSNI Open Data

[Owen Boswarva]

OSNI have said in a Twitter discussion today that they will remove the link
to the LPS licence, to make it clear that normal OGL terms apply to this
data:

https://twitter.com/owenboswarva/status/1164159795622043648

If you source the NI administrative boundaries from the Open Data NI site
(instead of the OSNI site) it already says the plain OGL applies, e.g.
https://www.opendatani.gov.uk/dataset/osni-open-data-largescale-boundaries-county-boundaries1

Owen

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 21:16, SK53  wrote:

This query would actually be better directed at talk-ie as the Irish OSM
> local chapter have been having discussions with OSNI (and OSI).
>
> However, I think it's safe to say that the relevant licence is not (yet)
> compatible with OSM: I did briefly discuss this point with one of the Open
> Data NI people who organised OpenData Camp #5 in Belfast, and she was
> certainly of the view that OSNI data (or any LPS data) was not very open.
> Many of these datasets would be very useful, for instance there is a point
> data set of streetnames (e.g., when the name of this bit
>  of street was being
> questioned, or just to do streetnames which are perhaps 10% completed).
>
> It is for this reason why there are no local authority boundaries in NI.
> However, at some point I used FHRS data to produce concave hulls which
> would be a first approximation (and no worse than things like the Limerick
> boundary 3-4 years ago). Also KDDA has some open data for the old Fermanagh
> district  (on umap here
> )
> which may assist in working out the boundaries (as will townland and other
> boundaries). But do check with talk-ie before leaping in.
>
> At one point maps.openstreetmap.ie had a number of overlay layers sourced
> from the OSI/OSNI data, but I think these never got restored after the
> server move. I used OSNI townland boundaries to compare with OSM ones back
> in 2015.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 18:42, Colin Smale  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone investigated if the data covering Northern Ireland which OSNI
>> make available under OGL V3, is licence-compatible with OSM in the same way
>> as the OSGB open data? I am particularly interested in admin boundaries,
>> e.g.
>> http://osni-spatial-ni.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/a55726475f1b460c927d1816ffde6c72_2
>>
>> The website says: "Open Government Data Licence applies.Land &
>> Property Services (LPS) has made a number of Ordnance Survey of Northern
>> Ireland® (OSNI®) branded datasets available free of charge under the terms
>> of the current Open Government Licence (OGL). These datasets – which
>> include raster and vector mapping, boundary, gazetteer, height, street and
>> townland products – are available for download.  Each dataset is clearly
>> marked with the OGL symbol. The OGL allows you to: copy, distribute and
>> transmit the data; adapt the data; and exploit the data commercially,
>> whether by sub-licensing it, combining it with other data, or including it
>> in your own product or application. You are therefore able to use the LPS
>> datasets in any way and for any purpose. We simply ask that you acknowledge
>> the copyright and the source of the data by including the following
>> attribution statement: Contains LPS Intellectual Property © Crown copyright
>> and database right (year)  This information is licensed under the terms of
>> the Open Government Licence (
>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3).
>> You must also: include the same acknowledgement requirement in any
>> sub-licences of the data that you grant, and a requirement that any further
>> sub-licences do the same; ensure that you do not use the data in a way that
>> suggests LPS endorses you or your use of the data; and make sure you do not
>> misrepresent the data or its source. N.B. Any dataset that does not
>> expressly state that it has been released under OGL will require a licence
>> from LPS and the appropriate licence fee will be applied."
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] English Urban Areas Building Heights 

[Owen Boswarva]

Presumably it's the CC BY open data here:

http://www.emu-analytics.com/products/datapacks.php


On 17 December 2017 at 16:57, Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On 17 December 2017 at 10:26, Rob Nickerson 
> wrote:
>
> > I am delighted to let you know that OSM UK have received written
> permission
> > to use the Emu Analytics "English Urban Areas Building Heights" in
> > OpenStreetMap.
>
> That;s great news.
>
> Where can we find the data?
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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] Local Authority rights of way information

[Owen Boswarva]

Let me know when the Council takes action against rowmaps. Until then it's
just two conflicting accounts, neither of which is independently verifiable.

Barry can speak for himself of course, but I can't see that he owes you an
explanation.

Owen
@owenboswarva

On 21 December 2016 at 11:53, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote:

Owen, I’ve seen that before, but it is at odds with my experience.
>
> I have asked ERoY council to release their Rights of Way data under OGL
> repeatedly. I have asked by email, through their customer services web
> page, by twitter, by letter, by telephone, by asking my local councillors
> to help and every time they refuse, saying there is no need as they publish
> the data on a (copyright) map. There are various other Open Data requests
> against ERoY council, all have been refused.
>
> When I spoke on the telephone I used rowmaps as an example of how they had
> already released the data under OGL. I was told there was no record of this
> data being released under any open licence.
>
> This is why I tried to contact Barry to get an explanation and to
> strengthen my case. He has not replied to me.
>
> Chris Hill
> (User chillly)
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:42, Owen Boswarva <owen.boswa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The circumstances under which the East Riding of Yorkshire data was
> provided to rowmaps are set out here:
>
> http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/
>
> I've no reason to mistrust Barry's account. But there is obviously a
> provenance issue for other users if the Council as copyright holder has not
> confirmed the licensing publicly.
>
> This is a case by case problem, as the OGL status of some of the other
> rights of way datasets on rowmaps can be confirmed via council sites.
>
> I can't see that http://www.rowmaps.com/ has rights of way data for Hull.
>
> Owen
> @owenboswarva
>
> On 21 December 2016 at 11:32, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the
>> data that ROWmaps is using?
>>
>> DaveF.
>>
>> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>>
>> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and
>> Hull data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>>
>> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence.
>> If anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that
>> edit.
>>
>>
>> Chris Hill
>> (User chillly)
>>
>>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>>
>> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many
>> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will
>> almost certainly be online.
>>
>> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will
>> know the copyright status.
>>
>>
>> Could you expand on your claims please.
>>
>> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the
>> distributor wouldn't know?
>>
>> DaveF
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [image: Avast logo]
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Local Authority rights of way information

[Owen Boswarva]

The circumstances under which the East Riding of Yorkshire data was
provided to rowmaps are set out here:

http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/EY/

I've no reason to mistrust Barry's account. But there is obviously a
provenance issue for other users if the Council as copyright holder has not
confirmed the licensing publicly.

This is a case by case problem, as the OGL status of some of the other
rights of way datasets on rowmaps can be confirmed via council sites.

I can't see that http://www.rowmaps.com/ has rights of way data for Hull.

Owen
@owenboswarva

On 21 December 2016 at 11:32, Dave F  wrote:

> Interesting. Under what license to you believe East Riding issued the data
> that ROWmaps is using?
>
> DaveF.
>
> On 21/12/2016 11:17, Chris Hill wrote:
>
> Row maps is definitely not based on OGL data. It includes E Yorks and Hull
> data that both councils have explicitly refused to release as OGL.
>
> I have asked Barry for his sources and there has been a stoney silence. If
> anyone has used rowmaps as a source for OSM edits I would revert that edit.
>
>
> Chris Hill
> (User chillly)
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2016, at 11:10, Dave F  wrote:
>
>
> On 21/12/2016 11:04, David Woolley wrote:
>
> A more complete answer is "probably not", as it is unlikely that many
> definitive maps are provided under such a licence.  If they are, they will
> almost certainly be online.
>
> It is also unlikely that anyone providing physical access to the map will
> know the copyright status.
>
>
> Could you expand on your claims please.
>
> Why do you believe the data on http://www.rowmaps.com/ isn't OGL & the
> distributor wouldn't know?
>
> DaveF
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo]
> 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> 
>
>
> ___
> 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] UK Postcodes

[Owen Boswarva]

ONS's National Statistics Postcode Lookup (NSPL) includes postcodes for the
Isle of Man and Channel Islands, but without geographic coordinates.

http://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/datasets?q=National+Statistics+Postcode+Lookup_by=relevance

Owen

On 26 September 2016 at 09:55, Christian Ledermann <
christian.lederm...@gmail.com> wrote:

OS Codepoint also does not include the postcodes for the Isle of Man
> and the channel islands.
> Is there an open data source for theses postcodes?
>
> On 26 September 2016 at 09:01, Gervase Markham <gerv-gm...@gerv.net>
> wrote:
> > On 25/09/16 21:47, Owen Boswarva wrote:
> >> I can't see any reason why there should be a problem using Code-Point
> >> Open in OSM, now that Ordnance Survey has applied the Open Government
> >> Licence in place of its own licence. If you read further down, the wiki
> >> page gives examples of OSM projects that use Code-Point Open.
> >
> > OK, that's good news. What's the quickest route to getting Nominatim to
> > understand this data set? File a Nominatim bug to get the search engine
> > to import the data set directly? Or add 500,000ish points to OSM itself
> > with something like type = "postcode_centre"?
> >
> > Gerv
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Christian Ledermann
>
> Newark-on-Trent - UK
> Mobile : +44 7474997517
>
> https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christianledermann
> https://github.com/cleder/
>
>
> <*)))>{
>
> If you save the living environment, the biodiversity that we have left,
> you will also automatically save the physical environment, too. But If
> you only save the physical environment, you will ultimately lose both.
>
> 1) Don’t drive species to extinction
>
> 2) Don’t destroy a habitat that species rely on.
>
> 3) Don’t change the climate in ways that will result in the above.
>
> }<(((*>
>
> ___
> 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] UK Postcodes

[Owen Boswarva]

That could be done but it's not straightforward; you'll get a lot of
overlapping postcode sectors and sectors with non-contiguous parts.
GeoLytix produced an open dataset like that some time ago:
http://blog.geolytix.net/tag/postcode-boundaries/

Owen

On 26 September 2016 at 09:39, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> How about deriving polygons for the postcode sector level (XX9 9) from the
> centroid point cloud, and adding the polygons to OSM? I don't know how many
> that would give, but it would be a whole lot less than 500k and still at a
> very usable level.
>
>
> //colin
>
> On 2016-09-26 10:01, Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> On 25/09/16 21:47, Owen Boswarva wrote:
>
> I can't see any reason why there should be a problem using Code-Point
> Open in OSM, now that Ordnance Survey has applied the Open Government
> Licence in place of its own licence. If you read further down, the wiki
> page gives examples of OSM projects that use Code-Point Open.
>
>
> OK, that's good news. What's the quickest route to getting Nominatim to
> understand this data set? File a Nominatim bug to get the search engine
> to import the data set directly? Or add 500,000ish points to OSM itself
> with something like type = "postcode_centre"?
>
> Gerv
>
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Postcodes

[Owen Boswarva]

Another OS OpenData dataset, OS Open Names, supports association of
postcode centroids with road names.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/products/os-open-names.html

Owen

On 25 September 2016 at 22:52, Lester Caine  wrote:

> On 25/09/16 21:34, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Does this not bother anyone else? It is just me? If it bothers lots of
> > people, why did those projects shut and why does no-one appear to be
> > doing anything about it? I kind of feel I must have missed something big
> > as this has seemed like an enormous glaring issue for years, but no-one
> > else seems bothered...
>
> CodePoint does not give road names, only a coordinate. What we need is
> to add postcodes to every road already in the OSM data. Perhaps that
> should be a quarterly project? Although in my book, since 'we' paid the
> council rates that paid for building the NSG (National Street Gazeteer),
> I see no reason that should not be downloadable data.
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> 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] UK Postcodes

[Owen Boswarva]

Government agreed to pay Ordnance Survey £20 million per annum for the OS
OpenData package, including Code-Point Open. The contract is here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/os_opendata_agreement_with_ordna_2#incoming-498165

I can't see any obvious reason why Royal Mail would oppose a similar
arrangement for NI postcodes, if NISRA wanted to support an open data
release. (Addresses are a different matter, of course.)

Owen

On 25 September 2016 at 22:26, Chris Hill  wrote:

You would have to ask OS. As I understand it OS and RM were pressured into
> releasing open data by the government in a bit of a hurry. I suspect the
> government didn't understand the different position of NI. OS has now
> seemingly become a convert to open data, publicly at least.
>
> OS had the deal sweetened with the Public Sector Mapping Agreement, but I
> don't know what leverage was applied to RM. Now that RM is a private
> company that boat has sailed IMHO.
>
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>
> On 25 September 2016 22:16:08 BST, Killyfole and District Development
> Association  wrote:
> >How did the OS manage to release the GB postcodes? Could a similar
> >model be
> >applied/lobbied for in NI?
> >
> >This has a huge impact for the residents of NI and especially those in
> >County
> >Fermanagh. We have no signage on rural roads here and even if you have
> >the
> >correct road name and number it is very difficult to find an address.
> >This makes
> >delivery of goods and services to be a nightmare to anyone not working
> >for
> >Royal Mail or local to the area.
> >
> >On Sunday, 25 September 2016 22:06:25 BST Chris Hill wrote:
> >> GB postcodes are published under a compatible licence by the Office
> >of
> >> National Statistics. The confusion over the Codepoint Open licence
> >has been
> >> resolved as it is now released under a suitable licence too. Northern
> >> Ireland does not release its postcodes under any open licence.
> >>
> >> Cheers, Chris
> >> (osm: chillly)
>
> --
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
> ___
> 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] UK Postcodes

[Owen Boswarva]

I can't see any reason why there should be a problem using Code-Point Open
in OSM, now that Ordnance Survey has applied the Open Government Licence in
place of its own licence. If you read further down, the wiki page gives
examples of OSM projects that use Code-Point Open.

Owen


On 25 September 2016 at 21:34, Gervase Markham  wrote:

I hope this isn't a silly question, but: it seems like all the projects
> to free the UK postcode database (like npemap and freethepostcode)
> closed down five or more years ago when the OS release CodePoint Open.
> However, this data set is not suitable for use in OSM, according to:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata
>
> The end result is that I still can't type UK postcodes into Nominatim,
> the main OSM search engine, and depend on getting useful results back.
> Which makes it, TBH, bloody useless compared to Google Maps, as 95% of
> the address searches I do are by postcode. Example:
>
> https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search.php?
> q=LE11+1PN=1=
> "No results"
> and
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=LE11%201PN#map=
> 13/52.7747/-1.1692
> Gives me "LE11 1##", which is not very close at all. To add insult to
> injury, it says "Results from NPEMap/FreeThePostcode", but it seems like
> either of those projects lets you add to their database any more!
> Nominatim doesn't seem to turn up postcodes even if they are added to
> objects in the OSM database as postcodes.
>
> Does this not bother anyone else? It is just me? If it bothers lots of
> people, why did those projects shut and why does no-one appear to be
> doing anything about it? I kind of feel I must have missed something big
> as this has seemed like an enormous glaring issue for years, but no-one
> else seems bothered...
>
> Gerv
>
>
> ___
> 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] OS OpenData now OGL

[Owen Boswarva]

That seems inconsistent. If OSM was concerned about the OS OpenData Licence
before, with respect to OS data, it should still be concerned with respect
to data produced by third parties that continue to use the licence.

The OS OpenData Licence is not dead if local authorities and other PSMA
members consider that it still applies to their data. While it is likely
most, if not all, local authorities will follow OS's transition to OGL, OS
cannot speak for them or their IP interests in the meantime. Robert
(Whittaker) is correct.

Owen

On 23 February 2015 at 16:07, Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com
wrote:

Robert wrote:
 I think that would be jumping the gun slightly. What I understand from
 OS's answer to me, is that previously released datasets will remain
 under the OS-ODL, and there is no automatic retrospective change of
 the licence.
 

 I think you are overly risk averse in this case and it could limit
 interesting uses of this data. The risk all along was that the OS could
 take offence to how we are using the data (the local authorities we forced
 to use the OS OpenData licence when they just wanted to make the data
 available as open). Yeah of course the OS cannot retrospectively change the
 licence of things released in the past but the fact that they have removed
 the licence text from their website and put a url redirect to the OGL
 suggests to me that the OS OpenData licence is dead. The risk is gone so
 lets not pretend otherwise as it will just send a negative message to our
 community.

 In time we can and should ask each LA to use the new licence but this
 shouldn't stop anyone from using the data now.

 Rob

 ___
 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] OS OpenData now OGL

[Owen Boswarva]

In my view the additional bit about acquiring rights in the Information
(whether the Information is obtained directly from the Licensor or
otherwise) is a clarification; not a change to the effect of the licence
(when comparing the versions).

You applies to persons acquiring rights in the information indirectly
under all versions of OGL. The additional wording in Version 3 just makes
that explicit. Otherwise Version 3 would not be backward compatible with
Version 2.

Owen


On 19 February 2015 at 11:42, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote:

 This is really good news and thank you Rob for flagging it.  Thanks also
 to the unknown folks at OS who have been working on this ... it follows
 through on a promise made to me in 2010 that they would look at.

 As cautioned by Rob, do wait until
 http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html
 updates before jumping into CodePoint data with abandon ... it is from a
 not very open friendly third party and the OGL does allow exemptions for
 that.

 I believe also that this will be good news for ?English Heritage,  (sorry,
 I live in Sweden),  data users as it removes an ambiguity over which of
 their data is covered by OGL and which by the now retired OS OpenData
 license.

 On the change from OGL 2 to OGL 3, I am a bit less enthusiastic.  I sat
 down with a large cup of coffee, compared them line by line and made the
 notes below.  The thing to highlight is the change to the You definition
 which does possibly shift some of concern about the OS Opendata license
 into the OGL itself. The usual caveat: IANAL.

 Mike

 The non-trivial changes between OGL 2 and OGL 3 are as follows:

 Insertion:

 You must, where you do any of the above:  acknowledge the source of the
 Information by including *or linking to* any attribution statement
 specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a
 link to this licence; 

 This is good news.

 Additional wording:

 If you are using Information from several Information Providers and
 listing multiple attributions is not practical in your product or
 application, you may include a URI or hyperlink to a resource that contains
 the required attribution statements.

 This is good news, it follows practise that we have set up in
 OpenStreetMap.

 'You',* 'you' and 'your'* means the natural or legal person, or body of
 persons corporate or incorporate, acquiring rights *in the Information
 (whether the Information is obtained directly from the Licensor or
 otherwise)* under this licence.

 This could potentially imply that users of OpenStreetMap data for the UK,
 for example to make a map, might have to additionally attribute the OS, (or
 other bodies). Just being paranoid here but I think it is worth following
 up.  On the other hand in both OGL 2 and OGL 3 is this explicit statement:

 These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License
 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License

 The wording of the latter is at
 http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1-0/

 Since the ODBL and Attribution License share common ancestry on
 attribution drafting, then quite likely we are compatible too by
 extension.  But it needs some one to sit down and compare both licenses.
 Apologies but I lack time these days.



 On 18/02/2015 19:41, Owen Boswarva wrote:

 (I should clarify that by compatible I meant forward-compatible rather
 than interoperable. OGL data is suitable as an input to a OdBL dataset, but
 not vice versa.)

  -- Owen (@owenboswarva)


 On 18 February 2015 at 18:04, Jo Walsh metaz...@fastmail.net wrote:

  I asked @owenboswarva on Twitter who is an active voice whom i trust on
 open government data issues, and he said this:

 IMO the only significant difference is v3 explicitly permits re-users to
 list multiple attributions via a URI or link.
  ...the differences are mostly just tidier syntax. If you are happy v2
 is compatible with OdBL (IMO it is) then v3 is also.


 zx
  --
  Jo Walsh
  metaz...@fastmail.net



 On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:

   On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen 
 i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote:


 I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on
 sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which would make
 OGL-3 incompatible with ODbL.Do we have confirmation that this is not
 the case, i.e. that OGL-3 and ODbL are compatible?

 -- Matthijs



  All the OGL versions are online. A comparison of v2 and v3 shows
 nothing to worry me. Hopefully Robert W will chip in as he's clued up on
 all this.

 Version 3:

 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

 Version 2:

 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
  *___*
  Talk-GB mailing list
  Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

[Owen Boswarva]

(I should clarify that by compatible I meant forward-compatible rather
than interoperable. OGL data is suitable as an input to a OdBL dataset, but
not vice versa.)

-- Owen (@owenboswarva)


On 18 February 2015 at 18:04, Jo Walsh metaz...@fastmail.net wrote:

 I asked @owenboswarva on Twitter who is an active voice whom i trust on
 open government data issues, and he said this:

 IMO the only significant difference is v3 explicitly permits re-users to
 list multiple attributions via a URI or link.
 ...the differences are mostly just tidier syntax. If you are happy v2 is
 compatible with OdBL (IMO it is) then v3 is also.


 zx
 --
 Jo Walsh
 metaz...@fastmail.net



 On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:

 On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl
 wrote:


 I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on
 sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which would make
 OGL-3 incompatible with ODbL.Do we have confirmation that this is not
 the case, i.e. that OGL-3 and ODbL are compatible?

 -- Matthijs



  All the OGL versions are online. A comparison of v2 and v3 shows nothing
 to worry me. Hopefully Robert W will chip in as he's clued up on all this.

 Version 3:
 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

 Version 2:
 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
  *___*
 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb