Peter
Your first two paragraphs are factually correct i.e. as to the
precedence of the Definitive Statement over the Definitive Map. I would
share your interpretation of the new derived data rules as to the effect
that has on freedom of use - although I might go a tad further in
arguing that the data has always been free to use so long as the use did
not include the OS base mapping.
You are also correct in pointing out that the numbering of the PRoW
never appears on OS maps and is generated by the HA, who - in my case at
least - state that it is in the public domain. The numbering systems
used vary a bit but usually include an acronym that states the type of
fight of way e.g. FP, BR, RB, BOAT.
I have more or less the same understanding of how the OS use the
definitive map copies. The generated raster mapping is, I think, used as
a GIS layer to produce the published maps etc. We often hear from the OS
or the Highway Authority that an error in the OS published mapping (e.g.
the path being shown on the wrong side of a boundary fence or hedge) is
due to poor registration between GIS layers. This where OSM is so useful
as our on-the-ground surveying corrects these OS errors and saves people
walking the length of a long field on the wrong side of the hedge and
then having to retrace their steps!
The particular HAs that I deal with do allow tracing of rights of way
from the definitive map - although this is rarely done any more as they
have also they have also put a 'working copy' of the definitive map on
the web - with a clear caveat regarding the copyright of the base map
(but not the overlay data). Having said that, OSM on-the-ground work
(and independent surveys done for the HA) show hundreds of anomalies!
My HAs do have data sets of PRoWs with no map at all. They do use OS
grid references in this database - but they could as easily have used
latitude and longitude.
One further point: may HAs have very bare definitive statements - far
less detailed than the law requires of them. My own HAs admit they are
in breach of their statutory duties in this regard but have no plans to
remedy this as they have no money (usual story).
Mike
On 19:59, Peter Miller wrote:
On 24 March 2011 13:56, Luke Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
As I understand it, there is both a written record of where the
rights of way go and the definitive map is in addition, with the
written record taking precedence?
So if a local authority is drawing their map, and it's offset from
the line of a wall for example from OS MasterMap, as the written
record might say, then it wouldn't represent the wall, nor be a
substitute for it, and it could be used independently of the OS
data. Under the new derived data rules [1], that seems to make it
free to use.
Copies of the definitive map go to Ordnance Survey and are used to
piece together the 25K and 50K maps, but I'm told Ordnance Survey
don't actually digitize it properly, just trace it, they claim not
to have a vector dataset.
I don't know how local authorities are storing their data, but you
can be sure they all do it differently. If we could get our hands
on copies of the definitive map to trace (since the only feature
you're copying, was put there by the LA, not OS), would that do?
I fear the problem is that even under the exemption process of the
PSMA, the LAs don't have a dataset per se of PRoWs that they could
just release, and might not be able to justify making one.
You make a good point. As far as I am aware the OS now allow derived
works for things drawn on their maps which weren't on the base map. In
the case of rights of way some of them are of course are on the
background OS layer which is a limitation (see example definite map -
link below). As such I don't think we can use the geometry even if we
wanted to.
http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg
Also... I am less interested in rights of way than in paths that can
actually be used. There are rights of way around here that are under
water now that the rivers have widened. There are other excellent
paths that are not rights of way.
Here is a nice example of an impossibly right of way where you would
need waders and a canoe to follow the path!
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120
<http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120>
The thing that I believe we can lift from the definitive maps with
confidence is fact that it is a 'right of way' and the right of way
code. That was not in the OS base map.
Regards,
Peter
Regards,
Luke
[1]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/using-and-creating-data-with-os-products/free-to-use-data/index.html
On 24/03/2011 12:20, Peter Miller wrote:
On 23 March 2011 19:25, TimSC <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi all,
Here is part of an email I sent to a few councils regarding
rights of way data (footpaths, bridleways, etc):
I have a big and fairly complicated request regarding the
definitive map. I am interested in making data more
accessible to the public (as encouraged by central
government [1]). It would be great if the rights of way data
could be released without restriction, specifically the
definite map. As you probably know, the rights of way data
is derived from Ordnance Survey products which until now has
prevented this data being released without restriction
because of copyright. However OS will soon introduce the
Public Sector Mapping Agreement which defines how government
bodies can use OS products [2]. This includes a new
mechanism for public bodies to request datasets that have
been derived from OS products to be release either licensed
as "OS OpenData" or "Free to Use" (section 2.5 of the
license [3]).
[1] http://data.gov.uk/
[2]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/
[3]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/docs/psma-member-licence.pdf
Kent County Council wrote back:
Dear Mr Sheerman-Chase
Thank you for your email.
I will forward your suggestions and comments to the Head of
the Service
and Definitive Map Team.
Kind regards
Countryside Access Service
Does anyone have any ideas on how to actually get the
councils to apply to OS to exempt their data and release it?
Currently, I get the impression that they don't rate data
openness as a high priority - they just nod and smile until I
go away. It would be good to get this data for quality
assurance or even ... dun dun dunnnnn... importing. Could we
start a petition? Or use any contacts the community has to
make this happen? Any other data sets worth liberating?
Once we have set a precedent, it should be easier to get
other councils to comply, because of the way the OS exemption
process works.
Technically I believe that the rights of way on the OS mapping is
derived from the legal documentation provided by the council. As
it happens I was talking to someone who was in a position to know
about this recently and he said that the OS don't even claim
ownership of rights of way data.
Also. my understanding is that Kent are particularly proactive on
open data. This youtube presentation is worth looking at even
though it seems to be about their map interface. Clearly they are
talking the talk on open data.
http://sparkdev.co.uk/showcase/show/open-kent
Here is another link. Carol Patrick seems to be the person to
talk to.
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=9274627
Regards,
Peter
Thoughts?
Regards, TimSC
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
--
*/Mike Harris/*
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
