That looks much better now. It's certainly interesting to see that whole counties, like Norfolk, appear to be sourced from OS OpenData. I know that that isn't true, but I guess it's a just a side-effect of the last edit to existing ways adding a source / source:name tag referencing OS, like adding the name to an existing way. It may be interesting to differentiate between source and source:name using different colours to get an idea of where it's only the name that's been added.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Graham Jones Sent: 21 July 2010 22:58 To: 80n Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Use of OS OpenData in OSM Hi, I have tidied up my OS Opendata Map (http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata). The changes are: * Lines and dots are smaller so it looks less of a mess. * It excludes source tags containing '25k', 'os7' and 'photos', which were giving quite a lot of false positives, especially in Scotland. Let me know if you see any others and I can exclude them. * I have left my original layer available as 'tiles1', but this is not displayed by default - you can add it with the '+' control to see the differences. * The about <http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata/about.html> page has been updated to describe how it works better (still crude, but more complicated SQL!). There are still some surprising things here - for example National Cycle Route 1 is highlighted, even though I know that the bits I added are not from OS Opendata (see the bit from Whitby to Sunderland here <http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata/?zoom=10&lat=54.6778&lon=-1.37818&l ayers=BFT> ). It seems that someone has tagged the relation (Relation Number 9579) with 'OS_OpenData_StreetView' - I don't know why they would have done this? Regards Graham. On 20 July 2010 23:40, Graham Jones <[email protected]> wrote: Thank you all for your comments. I'll not get into the licence change debate here - plenty of that on osm-talk.... - I agree that there are a few surprises highlighted here. There are a couple of cycle tracks highlighted that I survryed myself, so I will have to check the underlying data. When I get home I will improve the filtering to exclude os 1:25k references. - I will see what I can do with the rendering as Gregory suggests. - The supermarkets reference is copy-and-paste-itis on my behalf - sorry! - Emilie is probably right that strictly I should be interested in history, but I cant do that easily from a planet extract, and I don't think it will matter too much with opendata being so recent. A curious legal point is that if a way was originally derived from os-opendata, but subsequently re-surveyed, is it still derived from opendata? Graham ____________________ Graham Jones (from my phone) On Jul 20, 2010 4:41 PM, "80n" <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) <[email protected] <mailto:robert.whittaker%[email protected]> > wrote: > >... What's more, because Produced Works can be published under a restrictive license we couldn't get the additional data back by tracing either. ODbL + CT makes getting data back into OSM much harder than it is now by a massive degree. BTW, how would a corporation agree to the Contributor Terms anyway? The sign-up page only caters for individuals. Has, for example, CloudMade, agreed to the contributor terms yet and how could we tell if they had? 80n _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
