Had an experience yesterday which raises an interesting legal question. Around
Easter 2010, IIRC, I surveyed what appeared to be a footpath in good faith: the
footpath sign appeared to point down a gravel track across a field. Yesterday,
as part of another mapping expedition, I followed said
On 20/08/11 11:11, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
This does raise a legal dilemma though. Should the path stay in OSM and
risk the possible consequences - or should the path be deleted, risking
potential OS copyright infringement (as it was the OS that confirmed
that the path didn't in fact exist)?
To: Nick Whitelegg nick_whitel...@yahoo.co.uk
From: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu
Date: 20/08/2011 11:23AM
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org, legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] To delete or not to delete, that is the question...
On 20/08/11 11:11, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
This does
On 20/08/2011 11:41, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
The only hard-and-fast evidence for it being private, though, was
the OS.
Well, the landowner also told you. I've been in a similar situation,
said sorry, I'm a bit lost. Which way does the path go. The owner
should know.
Why not follow
The OS map is not definitive, the local council hold the definitive data. If
they have a textual form, not on an OS map, you should be able to get
permission to use that. If not, there has been talk of OS no longer making a
claim to overlays on OS maps made by public sector bodies as breaching
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
Around
Easter 2010, IIRC, I surveyed what appeared to be a footpath in good faith:
I was then given a hard time by the landowner
about trespassing etc.
The landowner has told you that it is not a footpath. Please delete
it. (Or re-tag as private.)
Regards, Phil.
I randomly came across the following routing errors with openrouteservice.org:
http://craigloftus.net/tmp/routing.png
I saw the first problem with the roundabout and when trying other
variations I spotted the 2nd at the bottom.
I can't see anything in the data that would result in such
7 matches
Mail list logo
