On Nov 29, 2012 11:57 AM, "Jonathan Harley" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28/11/12 20:46, Tom Chance wrote: >> This points to the major flaw with importing this data - it changes year to year, and we can't easily observe the changes on the ground. We might spot development on green belt and so remove the designation, we don't spot where new green space is designated as greenbelt. Unless we had ongoing co-operation from local authorities, within a year we'd be hosting a dataset that's out of date and impossible to check. > > > Hardly impossible, since it's public > information.
Sort of. As you say, it's always shown on maps as part of planning policy documents, but they're based on Ordnance Survey maps and are themselves copyrighted. We'd have to get clear permission to use them as a source for updating openstreetmap. > Green belt land is supposed to be > "permanent", if I remember the > Town and Country Planning Act > correctly, so it should change less > often than local government > boundaries The general sweep of the belts are permanent, but individual plots can change designations with a simple change to a local development plan document, and planning permission can be given on green belt land. > which have no evidence on the > ground at all in most places We used to use bins and local knowledge! These days we also have Ordnance Survey open data. > I'm not arguing for a rush to import > this dataset, but it would be great to > have this information in OSM I quite agree, I just don't think we have a suitable source yet. In the meantime it would be quite easy to overlay the Telegraph data on OpenStreetMap maps, and for GIS users to do interesting analysis. Regards, Tom
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
