Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 12:49:47PM +0100, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Maybe a compromise might be (assuming the licence is suitable) importing only > the "designation" tag for entirely new footways (i.e. without a highway tag > at all)? An excellent idea, but will it happen? ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:59 Dave F via Talk-GB, wrote: > > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils > > . While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use > > the data in OSM. > > Rubbish. > > Just because one person isn't aware of a fact, it doesn't make it untrue. > No one person has authority over other OSM contributors. > I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. My point was that if any mapper is using data under a licence that requires attribution, then they can only do so if the required attribution is given on either https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors . Otherwise OSM would be violating that licence by distributing a derived work without the attribution. So assuming permission to use the South Gloucestershire data is conditional on some attribution (which is the case for e.g. the OGL) then it needs to be listed as a source on the contributors page, with the appropriate attribution given. (Separately, I think it's also important from a community verification point of view that sources and licences are documented, so other mappers can check we have the necessary rights to use any claimed sources, and there is evidence if anyone challenges our use of particular data.) Robert. > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
There are certainly places where the rights-of-way as signed don't match what appears on e.g. OS Landranger - I was in one south of York just a couple of days ago. There in fact the OS data (including OS Opendata / older OS maps which have been traced into OSM) doesn't match what's on the ground now - a former airfield has been reclaimed for farming and other purposes and the former airfield's service roads don't always exist at all any more. There's also a public footpath that abruptly stops at the River Wharfe. Maybe a compromise might be (assuming the licence is suitable) importing only the "designation" tag for entirely new footways (i.e. without a highway tag at all)? That way there's no danger of general purpose map users (which would tend to be using maps based on "highway" tags) being misled, and it would still be possible for people seeking out these paths to find them and survey them. One place where a PRoW import could help is where people have added data remotely such as Amazon-traced service roads, tracks and driveways. This doesn't avoid the need for a survey, but it does add another dimension to the traced data. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils . While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use the data in OSM. Rubbish. Just because one person isn't aware of a fact, it doesn't make it untrue. No one person has authority over other OSM contributors. DaveF ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 11:05:44PM +0100, Neil Matthews wrote: > In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to > import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Apart from the licensing issue, many of these sorts of edits are simply wrong. I had to correct several "ficticious" footways in my local area which simply didn't exist on the ground, and sometimes crossed rivers at alleged fords. It was simply dangerous to direct people to try to walk what was perhaps an historic right of way. Ground survey nearly always needed. I concede that good imagery evidence can sometimes do if there are no local mappers. ael ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
Hi Neil. I contacted SG recently regarding as updated dataset under OGL v3. A Nicola Chidley from SG said I should use their set on rowmaps. An IT officer also said they were given OS copyright exemption in 2016. As it's designated paths being added other tags as well as highway should be added as appropriate foot/bicycle/horse=designated designation=public_footpath/public_bridleway/restricted_byway/byway_open_to_all_traffic prow_ref=* (This should be as given by the Local Authority & not some made up concoction which is useful to none.) surface=* If the contributor's adding a an unwalked path, a fixme=survey required tag would be useful. I will try to obtain a more up to date version than 2013, but I won't hold my breath DaveF On 08/08/2019 23:05, Neil Matthews wrote: In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Thanks, Neil ___ 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] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
Hi, I'm in agreement with Rob re:licensing. The good news is that lhe OS is now fine with the OSM-compliant Open Government Licence (version 3), so if you ask the council for an updated dataset they will be able to release the data under the appropriate licence. [I was actually in the process of doing this systematically for all the local authorities but haven't had much time to continue that for a while (maybe over the winter...).] Regarding the thornier issue of whether to import rights of way I think it does add useful information and (providing the source is tagged) I don't see that it hinders others efforts to map the physically existing route. What, of course, we absolutely must avoid is overzealous contributors 'correcting' others' ground surveyed information by aligning routes to the definitive line or changing access tags to match the dataset. Kind regards, Adam On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, 23:06 Neil Matthews, wrote: > In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to > import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? > > Thanks, > Neil > > ___ > 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] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 23:06, Neil Matthews wrote: > In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to > import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Based on the licensing information at http://www.rowmaps.com/datasets/SG/ my view would be "no". According to what's written there,the data on Rowmaps was only licensed by South Gloucestershire Council under the (old) OS OpenData Licence. This licence is not compatible with the ODbL used by OSM, due to the viral attribution that would be required even in produced works. I believe that what's written on the Rowmaps page is misleading, as to be used under a different licence (e.g. the OGL v3) the rights holder (i.e. the Council) would need to explicitly re-license their data -- OS cannot unilaterally do it for them. (I guess it's possible that whoever is doing the editing has contacted the council directly and got permission to use the data under the OGL, although I don't see this documented anywhere.) There's also the separate question of whether it's a good idea to import PRoW routes solely from (correctly licensed) external data. I don't think this is a good idea, since we want to capture the actual route on the ground as well as the definitive line. Without a ground survey, local knowledge, or the use of aerial imagery (e.g. for visible tracks) you won't be able to know the former. The data on Rowmaps is also somewhat old -- it would be better to request an up to date copy from the Council. Finally on a practical level, any license to use the data will almost certainly require some attribution from OSM if it's used. I can't see anything related to South Gloucestershire on the contributors page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Public_Rights_of_Way_Data_from_local_councils . While there's nothing listed there, it's definitely not ok to use the data in OSM. Robert. PS: I've got a list of licences and availability of PRoW data for different councils at https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/open-data/ , which I try to keep up to date. Please let me know of any corrections you spot that need making. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Rowmaps importing in South Gloucestershire
In light of some recent edits in South Gloucestershire -- is it ok to import unsurveyed footpaths based simply on rowmaps data? Thanks, Neil ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
