On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:32:50 +0000 SK53 <[email protected]> wrote: > For the sake of clarification: > > Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open > Government License is not widely accepted in the community. > > Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or > otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike > Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license > with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation.
AIUI that agreement only covers datasets released by the Ordnance Survey (with the exception of Code-Point Open), it does not cover other organisations that choose to release data under the OS-OGL. Without further clarification you cannot be certain why an organisation chose OS-OGL over the OGL and if they consent to us using their data in that way. In the case of Norfolk I'd be inclined to contact them to ask for a clarification of what the licence actually is; their website has it listed as OS-OGL but data.gov.uk has it listed as OGL. > As always it is worth noting that surveyed data are better than > imports: this is particularly true of footpaths where the local > council and OSGB data may be at variance with what is on the ground > (as I discovered a while ago in Carmarthenshire). Using Open Data to > establish whether an existing mapped path is a ProW is a different > matter. +1 -- Regards, Andy Street _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
