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
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
Re: [Talk-GB] Ordnance Survey
On 1 April 2010 09:41, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote: It's up and available: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf The main wrinkle seems to be this part on their requirement for attribution: include the same acknowledgement requirement in any sub-licenses of the data that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licenses do the same Can anyone comment on what that means for us, i.e. whether a simple note on the wiki as per other imports will suffice? The license requires a particular form of attribution and some other conditions, which they claim are compatible with CC-By. But before we get all enthusiastic about importing or tracing things, I think we need to consider the implications of their licence. My reading is that it would require us to include their attribution statement on any product that uses the data, which would include downloads and OSM's slippy may. It may or may not be enough to link to a sources wiki page from the OSM copyright line. More importantly, we also have to ensure that any downstream users are aware of the OS data included, and also ensure that our terms require them to include the OS attribution statement. I don't think the current OSM arrangements would satisfy these requirements, and I'm not sure the viral copyright attributions are something we would really want to accept. I could imagine a point where to print a small OSM derived map in a paper publication would mean including half a dozen copyright lines that would take up more space than the map itself. Moreover, since IIRC ODbL allows rendered maps to be made PD (or any other license) and also allows small data extracts to be used without restriction, I'm not sure that we'd able to use the OS data under their current license if/when we move to ODbL. Until we get clarification on these issues, I'd suggest not importing any of the OS data, or using any of it for tracing. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
