Andy
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ian Spencer
Sent: 11 May 2010 10:55 AM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
(Newbie alert!!) I suspect this has been discussed
Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)
Sent: 11 May 2010 11:43 PM
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: 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
James Davis wrote on 12/05/2010 10:05:
Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with
subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its
easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the
(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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
