[Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey talk tomorrow
Hello everyone, In case of interest here: There is a British Computer Society talk given by a couple of guys from the Ordnance Survey on OpenSpace and the release of free data at my work place tomorrow. It's at Room HC029, Southampton Solent University, 6pm for 6.30pm. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey talk tomorrow
Can't quite make that one .. but it sounds great. Any chance of a YouTube'd version appearing? Phil On 11 May 2010 09:51, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hello everyone, In case of interest here: There is a British Computer Society talk given by a couple of guys from the Ordnance Survey on OpenSpace and the release of free data at my work place tomorrow. It's at Room HC029, Southampton Solent University, 6pm for 6.30pm. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Surry Meetup
Just a reminder that the Surrey meetup is tonight at 7pm. Etienne On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:38 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Folks There will be a pub-meetup for Surrey OSMers on Tuesday May 11th at 7pm. The venue is the Hand and Spear adjacent to Weybridge railway station: http://osm.org/go/euuI8D_jm- The general election will hopefully be history by then, so the main topic of discussion will be the new aerial imagery for the whole county. Etienne ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey talk tomorrow
Nick Whitelegg wrote: Hello everyone, In case of interest here: There is a British Computer Society talk given by a couple of guys from the Ordnance Survey on OpenSpace and the release of free data at my work place tomorrow. It's at Room HC029, Southampton Solent University, 6pm for 6.30pm. I would have liked to have heard that myself, but I can't get down :( Can you ask them when they will be fixing the problem with the 'case' of file names ;) Having a mixture of upper and lower case files with all lower case names in the indexes is a little annoying :( But then they probably only use Windows ... -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
(Newbie alert!!) I suspect this has been discussed before, but it seems to me that there is a big hole in open source mapping, and that is getting hold of definitive maps in electronic form to be able to document them. I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be freely available. (???!!!) What I am interested in is the gaps between the footpaths people recognise and those which are registered on the definitive lists as there is a deadline in around 10 years for getting missing paths registered. I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released? I've read the tagging "controversy" and it seems there is a lack of finality on tagging - is there anyone trying to resolve this? In the end, only the OS maps seem to have legal status, but they aren't releasing footpaths :( Anyway, just off for some Coast to Coast cycling... Cheers! Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
(Newbie alert!! - another try without the HTML setting) I suspect this has been discussed before, but it seems to me that there is a big hole in open source mapping, and that is getting hold of definitive maps in electronic form to be able to document them. I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be freely available. (???!!!) What I am interested in is the gaps between the footpaths people recognise and those which are registered on the definitive lists as there is a deadline in around 10 years for getting missing paths registered. I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released? I've read the tagging controversy and it seems there is a lack of finality on tagging - is there anyone trying to resolve this? In the end, only the OS maps seem to have legal status, but they aren't releasing footpaths :( Anyway, just off for some Coast to Coast cycling... Cheers! Spenny ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
On 11/05/10 11:22, Ian Spencer wrote: I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be freely available. (???!!!) You assume wrongly. Well sort of - you have a right to inspect it but that doesn't mean you have a right to copy things from it. The main problem is that definitive maps are drawn over OS maps and are therefore considered (by OS at least) to be derived from their mapping and hence local authorities are unable to give permission to copy from them even if they wanted to. The issue of OS derived data is supposed to be getting cleared up, but for now it is still a problem. I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released? I suspect in most cases the definitive version of the definitive map is on paper so getting hold of the data electronically may be hard/impossible. That's not to say that the data may not be in the council's GIS system but simply that if you exercise your right to view it then you're likely to be shown a paper version. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
OK. Thanks for the correction. I guess after that hullabaloo down South settles down, the thing to do is to get my local friendly MP to table a question on this and see where that leads. you'd hope it'd be a fairly open door, as it should not need the underlying mapping released and public scrutiny of definitive ways is essential under the current legislation. I'll pop a question to the Ramblers and see where they have got to. Ian Tom Hughes wrote on 11/05/2010 11:29: On 11/05/10 11:22, Ian Spencer wrote: I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be freely available. (???!!!) You assume wrongly. Well sort of - you have a right to inspect it but that doesn't mean you have a right to copy things from it. The main problem is that definitive maps are drawn over OS maps and are therefore considered (by OS at least) to be derived from their mapping and hence local authorities are unable to give permission to copy from them even if they wanted to. The issue of OS derived data is supposed to be getting cleared up, but for now it is still a problem. I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released? I suspect in most cases the definitive version of the definitive map is on paper so getting hold of the data electronically may be hard/impossible. That's not to say that the data may not be in the council's GIS system but simply that if you exercise your right to view it then you're likely to be shown a paper version. Tom ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
On 11/05/10 11:39, Ian Spencer wrote: OK. Thanks for the correction. I guess after that hullabaloo down South settles down, the thing to do is to get my local friendly MP to table a question on this and see where that leads. you'd hope it'd be a fairly open door, as it should not need the underlying mapping released and public scrutiny of definitive ways is essential under the current legislation. I'll pop a question to the Ramblers and see where they have got to. If you read the consultation response you'll see that one of the results (in addition to the open data release) was agreeing to sort out the derived data issues so there should be something happening. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
On 11 May 2010 11:58, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: It's my intention to ask about the whole path issue (will they release footpaths; definitive maps; derived data) at the presentation tomorrow evening (see other message). There are some interesting comments from OS about why they didn't / couldn't include footpath / Public Rights of Way (PRoW) data in any of the OS OpenData products in the comments at http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2010/04/os-opendata-goes-live/ Apparently OS regards the PRoW data as containing IP belonging to the local authorities (who maintain the definitive maps), and so were unable to release them as part of OpenData. There is an agreement that allows OS to include PRoW data in their Explorer and Landranger Maps. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB robert.whittaker+osm-talk...@... writes: Apparently OS regards the PRoW data as containing IP belonging to the local authorities (who maintain the definitive maps), and so were unable to release them as part of OpenData. This is a nicely executed bureaucratic tangle. It might help to have an official statement from OS that they are happy to waive their interest in local authority right-of-way maps even when those maps have been produced using some OS data. Then we'd just have to ask each local authority (and point them to the OS disclaimer). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Fw: Definitive Paths Map Source
Apparently OS regards the PRoW data as containing IP belonging to the local authorities (who maintain the definitive maps), and so were unable to release them as part of OpenData. There is an agreement that allows OS to include PRoW data in their Explorer and Landranger Maps. Sorry, meant to send it to the list. Damn my email client!!! Well that's weird because the authorities say that it's copyright OS! The only reason the councils may not be able to release the data is because it's based on the OS map - if the OS give the green light the whole proprietary thing about footpath data falls apart. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OS Shapefiles
Thanks Chris Why have the OS done wrong in their prj file?. The test ogr2ogr I performed using the OS prj files were only slightly off when compared to the prj files you provided, and I didnt realise there was a problem until you provided the a new prj file. Now that Chris has provided us with some tools, it would be helpful if someone else could provide some help with using Python for the 99% that think its a snake. Cheers, Jason On 11 May 2010 16:53, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: I've written up the way I have used OS shapefiles in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OS Shapefiles
Jerry Clough gave me the fix, so he might explain the detail. The difference seems to vary across the country. Close to my home is was nearly 150m off which was too large for me to use, so I'm glad I waited to get a proper solution. Cheers, Chris Jason Cunningham wrote: Thanks Chris Why have the OS done wrong in their prj file?. The test ogr2ogr I performed using the OS prj files were only slightly off when compared to the prj files you provided, and I didnt realise there was a problem until you provided the a new prj file. Now that Chris has provided us with some tools, it would be helpful if someone else could provide some help with using Python for the 99% that think its a snake. Cheers, Jason On 11 May 2010 16:53, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net mailto:o...@raggedred.net wrote: I've written up the way I have used OS shapefiles in the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_OS_Shapefiles Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OS Shapefiles
Hi Chris, Thanks for this, very helpful. I just followed this through and converted data for some woods near me and it all worked okay apart from your ogr2ogr command line has the output and input files around the wrong way (gdal 1.7.2). Kevin On 11 May 2010 18:28, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: Tim Francois wrote: Chris Any chance of providing some command snippets for using gdal's ogr2ogr for us plebs who've never used it? I do not understand the man page whatsoever!! Thanks Tim Done. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS layer. But for each parish, they also publish a text description of each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. Useful as not all real-world physical signs have the number. So using that with the NPE layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the present ROWs. Anyone see any problems with this method? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Using OS Shapefiles
Thanks Kevin, I've corrected the page. I should have checked it and not relied on my flaky memory. :( Cheers, Chris Kevin Peat wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks for this, very helpful. I just followed this through and converted data for some woods near me and it all worked okay apart from your ogr2ogr command line has the output and input files around the wrong way (gdal 1.7.2). Kevin On 11 May 2010 18:28, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net mailto:o...@raggedred.net wrote: Tim Francois wrote: Chris Any chance of providing some command snippets for using gdal's ogr2ogr for us plebs who've never used it? I do not understand the man page whatsoever!! Thanks Tim Done. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn i...@dynoyo.plus.com wrote: In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS layer. But for each parish, they also publish a text description of each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. Useful as not all real-world physical signs have the number. So using that with the NPE layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the present ROWs. Anyone see any problems with this method? If the textural descriptions (known as the Definitive Statement) have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging to OS. I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take. On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data. Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of the current public rights of way. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
