Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Whilst we are on USRNs (and UPRNs), I have updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData to include them. The whole discussion on how they join up could merit a wiki section or page of its own...somewhere to collect together all the snippets of information.just a gentle reminder that if we don't document stuff then it disappears into the ether. Sure, it's on Talk-GB archive, but it's still just talk. On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 11:06 Mark Goodge, wrote: > > > On 15/07/2020 09:05, Phillip Barnett wrote: > > Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the > > street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge? > > In this case, there are no doors on the street as it's just an access road! > > What might work would be to contact a local councillor, say, and ask > them for the name of the street. Their local knowledge can then be used > in OSM. > > If you wanted to pursue the FOI route, another option would be to ask > for documentation from the time when the road was named, showing the > decisions made. It would probably date from the time when the entire > estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as > it is some time ago. > > Mark > > ___ > 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 15/07/2020 09:05, Phillip Barnett wrote: Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge? In this case, there are no doors on the street as it's just an access road! What might work would be to contact a local councillor, say, and ask them for the name of the street. Their local knowledge can then be used in OSM. If you wanted to pursue the FOI route, another option would be to ask for documentation from the time when the road was named, showing the decisions made. It would probably date from the time when the entire estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as it is some time ago. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 15/07/2020 08:35, o...@poppe.dev wrote: We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. This can found via: http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html You are free to use this information for your own use, including for non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our permission as copyright holder. If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us. *** This is the FOI get-out; they can refer you to existing published information and therefore don't need to give a direct answer in the response. Unfortunately, that doesn't help with finding an ODbL-compliant source of the name. Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn. Well, it would, because the Adopted Roads list will match the NSG. In fact, it's the source of the information that Ealing submits to the NSG. So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions? I suspect it would be fruitless anyway. They'll just refer you to the existing mechanisms for getting access to the NSG. But even if you were to pay the cost of that, it won't deliver the data in a suitable licence. In any sane world, of course, the idea that the names of roads should be subject to any form of restrictive license would be deemed utterly absurd. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge in this world. While the creation of a map, is, clearly, a work subject to copyright, a simple fact - and the name of a road is a fact - isn't. And a list of road names, created for the benefit of those who use and maintain the roads, has no independent economic value and therefore doesn't meet the criteria for database right. The rulings by the European Court of Justice in the William Hill and Fixtures Marketing cases are relevant here - essentially, the court concluded that if a list of facts (eg, a list of football matches, or horses entered in a race) is a necessary part of administering the competition, then that list of facts isn't subject to database right as it has no existence independently of the competition's functioning. And I'm pretty sure that a court would apply the same judgment to a list of street names. Councils have a legal obligation to maintain the canonical list of street names in their territory, and, in any case, having such a list is essential to the way that the council operates. So the list has no independent existence apart from that legal and operational necessity, and therefore doesn't qualify for database right. But, of course, OSM can't include data on the basis of a legal opinion. It would take an actual court case to establish the fundamental openness of street names, and OSM doesn't want to be the organisation which is part of that case. So, at the moment, we're still stuck as far as directly reusing names from the NSG is concerned. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge? Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Jul 2020, at 08:36, o...@poppe.dev wrote: > > >> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could >> also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street. > > Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday: > > *** > Your request: > In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub between the > area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the > WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W > (OSGB36 between 516136/179011 and 516205/179048). > As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, > that is available under the Open Government License or any other > OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication. > > Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in > response: > > We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. > This can found via: > http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html > You are free to use this information for your own use, including for > non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of > news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the > information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our > permission as copyright holder. > If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us. > *** > > Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" > and closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer > (adding ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and > he went to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no > street name signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over > the last few weeks *sic* > > Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that > this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn. > > So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this > information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I > want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the > answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions? > > K > > ___ > 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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could > also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street. Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday: *** Your request: In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub between the area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W (OSGB36 between 516136/179011 and 516205/179048). As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, that is available under the Open Government License or any other OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication. Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in response: We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. This can found via: http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html You are free to use this information for your own use, including for non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our permission as copyright holder. If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us. *** Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" and closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer (adding ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and he went to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no street name signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over the last few weeks *sic* Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn. So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions? K ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 12:39, Mark Goodge wrote: > For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last > surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Unknown_author https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works#UK -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 11/07/2020 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. Geographia is a former publisher of maps, now defunct (and not related to the US company of the same name). I also don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it. For non-OS maps, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving major contributor. The wiki has some information on this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Out-of-copyright_maps#UK The atlas should have a publication date on it, somewhere. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Morning list! I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street. K Am 11. Juli 2020 12:37:33 MESZ schrieb Martin Wynne : > >> It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. > >We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag >it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could >call it Fairfields Road. > >Martin. > >___ >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] The curious case of USRN 20602512
It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. We could do the same. If we don't know whether it is permissible to tag it Fairfield Road in OSM, and there is no actual sign on it, we could call it Fairfields Road. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 2020-07-11 07:47, Steve Doerr wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it. It is just possible (sight unseen) that it is an Easter Egg. When I headed the License Working Group we had an ironic case in Israel where a contributor had asked local residents what an unsigned back street was called and they told him they knew it as "Pearl Street", which he promptly mapped. A local atlas company then got angry that we were "copying their data" citing the their made-up Pearl Street as proof. Fiction can become fact. Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So, it seems that Fairfield [Road] isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. For what it's worth, I also found it in a street atlas published by Geographia. I don't know if that's the same company as A-Z. I also don't know the date of the street atlas and neither do I know how old a street atlas (non-OS) would have to be in order to be able to copy a name from it. -- Steve -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 10/07/2020 22:27, Nick wrote: Hi Lester I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought is that this needs to be a 'public' (open) channel that shows a) the number of issues identified (the rationale for making data open) and b) how long it takes for these to be investigated and resolved (if appropriate). TOTALLY AGREE ... local authorities MAY be required by law to provide the data, but they get no funding, and no support to manage that data yet third parties have been making money from it! SO the next step is to document all the mistakes. There should be no assumption that the current data set IS correct, which is why it should be used as a parallel layer and not simply imported over what may well be more accurate data. On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not to have easy access to the data. Spot on ... The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to another job description and someone who probably had no training is this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the same legal framework ... ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Hi Lester I think there needs to be some thought as to the "proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' responsible". It took me months to get a 'data officer' to correct the location of a single UPRN, so my thought is that this needs to be a 'public' (open) channel that shows a) the number of issues identified (the rationale for making data open) and b) how long it takes for these to be investigated and resolved (if appropriate). On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not to have easy access to the data. Spot on ... The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to another job description and someone who probably had no training is this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the same legal framework ... ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 10/07/2020 16:00, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote: After not having any luck in finding out of copyright maps that helped I wondered, if a FOI request to Ealing Council, naming the exact location and asking for the name would be fruitful. Did anyone ever try something like this? Would this then be seen as a source compliant to the ODbL? I suspect that an FOI request would return the name that's in the NSG. That is, Fairfield Road. It's unlikely that the FOI officer will do anything other than look up the street on the computer, and take the answer they are given. I'm not sure whether that's acceptable for ODbL or not. There's a lot of data that can be released under FOI that can't be reused because it contains proprietary information. This may come under that category. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 10/07/2020 14:21, Lester Caine wrote: On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not to have easy access to the data. Spot on ... The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to another job description and someone who probably had no training is this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the same legal framework ... There is a process for changing the name of a street, yes. It's a bit cumbersome and bureaucratic, but it's doable. The problem with correcting an error on the NSG is that, unless it is a clear and obvious error (such as a typo), and there is current documentation which shows the correct form of the name, it has to be treated as a name change rather than an error correction. So, for example, if the NSG says "Coronaton Street" for a street on a new development, but the minutes of the relevant meeting where new street names were discussed clearly shows that it was resolved to call it "Coronation Street", then that is a clear and obvious error which can be corrected without the need for any further hurdles to jump. But, on the other hand, if the NSG has "Victoria Square" for a street that has been there since Victorian times and was entered into the NSG as "Victoria Square" in the 1990s when the NSG was first created, then even if absolutely everybody who lives there knows that it really should be "Albert Square", and there are records dating back to the 19th century which show it as "Albert Square", and even if it's always been "Albert Square" on the OS maps, then it still needs to go through a full change of name process to get the NSG updated to say "Albert Square". And that can't be done just by asking for it, it needs the support of the local councillors at district or borough level as well as, if appropriate, the support of the local parish council. And getting that support can be problematic. (This scenario is precisely what happened in the case I was involved in; a village lane that had been known by a particular name for centuries, and was still known by that name by the locals, had, somehow, ended up in the NSG in 1991 under a completely different name. And getting that changed was a whole world of pain.) Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Thank you for this absolute masterpiece of detective work, Marc! I'd never thought that looking through old Notes would spark such an interest :) As reported before, my own dip into having USRN data underlying JOSM at that particular point showed that this stub (in USRN the part where the barrier is to the northeast of the way isn't shown, so I guess that's really a small part of highway=footway) is recorded with the USRN you named. So I also believe that this isn't something to find copyright infringements - because the way exists, Google Street view clearly shows people walking along that way. After not having any luck in finding out of copyright maps that helped I wondered, if a FOI request to Ealing Council, naming the exact location and asking for the name would be fruitful. Did anyone ever try something like this? Would this then be seen as a source compliant to the ODbL? Kai Am 10. Juli 2020 12:27:24 MESZ schrieb Mark Goodge : >Apologies for the long read, but this may be interesting to some folk. >This follows on from my earlier response to Kai Michael Poppe about >"Fairfield Road" in Ealing. > >On 04/07/2020 12:02, I wrote: >> >> To find the USRN of the path, you need to use the lookup tables supplied >> by OS. Doing that, we find that the associated USRN is 20602512. >> >> Now, there's no open data source which will directly tell you the name >> of a USRN (at least, not until we start putting them into OSM). The long >> way of doing so is to find the matching LineString in OS OpenMap Local, >> and see what name it has there. >> >> However, it can be done directly via a non-open source. If you go to >> https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map and zoom in on the location, then >> click the street to bring up the USRN details, it will give the name >> (and also confirm that the USRN from the OS lookup table is correct). Or >> use the search box and search for USRN 20602512. >> >> From an OSM point of view, that would normally be a dead end. Even if >> you can view the information on a non-open source, you can't incorporate >> it into OSM. However, in this case, we already have an abbreviated name >> from an open source. So all we are learning from the closed source is >> the full text of the abbreviation. Whether that makes it acceptable to >> include the full name into OSM is a matter of debate. I'll leave that >> decision up to others, but, for reference, the name of the street is >> Fairfield Road. > >I've been doing a bit more research in this, as it piqued my interest. >And the results are a little surprising. > >For a start, USRN 20602512 doesn't match Fairfield Road in OS LocalMap >Open. In fact, there's no Fairfield Road anywhere near there in OSLMO. >Matching the coordinates indicates that, as far as OS is concerned, it's >a part of Southdown Avenue. That's not particularly unusual, access >roads off named streets often don't have a name of their own, they're >either completely unnamed or share the name of their parent street. > >However, I did wonder whether this might just be a limitation on OS Open >Data, and whether MasterMap might actually include the name. That's not >reusable in OSM, of course, but it might help point to an open source >that does contain it. > >But it seems that even MasterMap doesn't have that name. You can check >that by looking at Ealing's online GIS website: > >http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Planning/Planning.html > >This is a planning application map, but it's just a window into their >GIS system and you can turn off the planning layers. Anyway, zoom all >the way in to the street in question - I can't give you a persistent >link, but it's just above the LA boundary in the bottom middle of the >map - and... it still has no name. At the highest zoom level, this is >MasterMap, and every named object has its name displayed. But there's no >name here. > >Google, also, knows nothing of a Fairfield Road here. Using the Maps API >to query the coordinates of USRN 20602512, we either get Southdown >Avenue, again, or Boston Gardens, which is the postal address of >buildings facing Boston Road. You can see that name on the road sign via >Google Streetview: > >https://goo.gl/maps/KGLbRC75mQw43PCV6 > >So, it seems that Fairfield Gardens isn't known to either OS or Google. >It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom >level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. > >Given that, we can't include the name "Fairfield Road" in OSM as it's >only available from non-open sources. But even those non-open sources >don't agree on the name. That seems to me to lead to two possibilities: > >1. It doesn't exist at all. It's just a map trap designed to catch out >unwary copyright infringers. That's certainly a possibility, and A-Z >maps are known to use those. But that doesn't explain its presence in >the USRN database. > >2. The USRN name is wrong, but that error has
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: This is, of course, one of the problems with proprietary data. It can be difficult to spot errors, because the people who are most likely to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not to have easy access to the data. Spot on ... The 'proprietary data' is however the input from the relevant officer at the council covering the area. Probably originally tacked on to another job description and someone who probably had no training is this 'new' function? I was receiving NLPG updates for many years and the vast majority of 'updates' were corrections to data rather than additions. The problem has always been not allowing public access to what has always been public data and now we do have access there needs to be a proper channel to feed corrections to the 'data officer' responsible for the relevant slice of raw data. I don't think THAT has changed since the requirements for councils to provided the raw NPLG data passed into law? I'm fairly sure the street data is part of the same legal framework ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - https://lsces.uk/wiki/Contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - https://lsces.uk Model Engineers Digital Workshop - https://medw.uk Rainbow Digital Media - https://rainbowdigitalmedia.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Hi Mark Brilliant comment - "because the people who are most likely to spot errors - members of the general public with local knowledge - tend not to have easy access to the data". Now we need the evidence (errors) collated centrally (OSM?). On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: Apologies for the long read, but this may be interesting to some folk. This follows on from my earlier response to Kai Michael Poppe about "Fairfield Road" in Ealing. On 04/07/2020 12:02, I wrote: To find the USRN of the path, you need to use the lookup tables supplied by OS. Doing that, we find that the associated USRN is 20602512. Now, there's no open data source which will directly tell you the name of a USRN (at least, not until we start putting them into OSM). The long way of doing so is to find the matching LineString in OS OpenMap Local, and see what name it has there. However, it can be done directly via a non-open source. If you go to https://www.findmystreet.co.uk/map and zoom in on the location, then click the street to bring up the USRN details, it will give the name (and also confirm that the USRN from the OS lookup table is correct). Or use the search box and search for USRN 20602512. From an OSM point of view, that would normally be a dead end. Even if you can view the information on a non-open source, you can't incorporate it into OSM. However, in this case, we already have an abbreviated name from an open source. So all we are learning from the closed source is the full text of the abbreviation. Whether that makes it acceptable to include the full name into OSM is a matter of debate. I'll leave that decision up to others, but, for reference, the name of the street is Fairfield Road. I've been doing a bit more research in this, as it piqued my interest. And the results are a little surprising. For a start, USRN 20602512 doesn't match Fairfield Road in OS LocalMap Open. In fact, there's no Fairfield Road anywhere near there in OSLMO. Matching the coordinates indicates that, as far as OS is concerned, it's a part of Southdown Avenue. That's not particularly unusual, access roads off named streets often don't have a name of their own, they're either completely unnamed or share the name of their parent street. However, I did wonder whether this might just be a limitation on OS Open Data, and whether MasterMap might actually include the name. That's not reusable in OSM, of course, but it might help point to an open source that does contain it. But it seems that even MasterMap doesn't have that name. You can check that by looking at Ealing's online GIS website: http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Planning/Planning.html This is a planning application map, but it's just a window into their GIS system and you can turn off the planning layers. Anyway, zoom all the way in to the street in question - I can't give you a persistent link, but it's just above the LA boundary in the bottom middle of the map - and... it still has no name. At the highest zoom level, this is MasterMap, and every named object has its name displayed. But there's no name here. Google, also, knows nothing of a Fairfield Road here. Using the Maps API to query the coordinates of USRN 20602512, we either get Southdown Avenue, again, or Boston Gardens, which is the postal address of buildings facing Boston Road. You can see that name on the road sign via Google Streetview: https://goo.gl/maps/KGLbRC75mQw43PCV6 So, it seems that Fairfield Gardens isn't known to either OS or Google. It is shown (in abbreviated form) on streetmap.co.uk, but at that zoom level, in London, that's based on the Bartholomew A-Z maps rather than OS. Given that, we can't include the name "Fairfield Road" in OSM as it's only available from non-open sources. But even those non-open sources don't agree on the name. That seems to me to lead to two possibilities: 1. It doesn't exist at all. It's just a map trap designed to catch out unwary copyright infringers. That's certainly a possibility, and A-Z maps are known to use those. But that doesn't explain its presence in the USRN database. 2. The USRN name is wrong, but that error has propagated to the A-Z maps. Personally, I think that the second option is the most likely. And, if so, it wouldn't be the only error in USRN. One of the things I had to deal with a few years ago, in my capacity as a district councillor, was a country lane in my ward that had the wrong name assigned to it in USRN. After a bit of investigation, we concluded that it had simply been a transcription error back in the late 90s when the local gazetteer was first digitised, but it had gone unnoticed for a couple of decades simply because the wrong name never appeared anywhere in public until it eventually cropped up on a planning application. Getting the name corrected wasn't an easy task, because of the length of time it had been wrongly recorded, but we did eventually
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Hi, On 10/07/2020 11:27, Mark Goodge wrote: So this is a bit of a warning, really, for the open mapping community. Although the open data release of USRN ids and coordinates is welcome, don't be tempted to look up street names on the street list published, with a restrictive licence, on https://www.findmystreet.co.uk and then copy them to our own data. Because it simply isn't reliable enough as a guide to actual usage, even if it is what the "official" name of the road may be. Stick to OS Open Data and local knowledge. Thanks - that's an interesting and informative tale about 'canonical' sources being sourced by human beings from complex and contradictory data. Some years ago, I remember being rather surprised investigating differences between my own surveys and OS open data using ITO tools. After double checking the 'ground truth', OSM is closer to reality than OS in several places around my area - perhaps 3 diffs across a 45k population town (Cramlington, NE23). Geography and human society is more complex with the same space being called many things over time, and by different groups. How many small towns didn't have a 'High Street' until an OS surveyor first visited it and wrote a name down? How many 19th century terraces originally had the buildings named, rather than the surrounding streets? Working in telecoms, I understand the benefits of a UPRN / USRN, however as a geographer they still feel a bit like a more precise version of 'High Street'. I still added U*RN tags to my local area - like a 21st century alt_name tag! :-) James -- James Derrick li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me... https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
