Hi Nick, Yes Hampshire's data is unambiguously available for use under OGL3.
Kind regards Adam On Thu, 31 May 2018, 09:52 Nick Whitelegg, <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote: > > > (Adam - apologies for not quoting, but this email client performs the > annoying habit of top-posting and haven't figured out a way to get it to do > standard quotes). > > > So, just to clarify, taking my local authority (Hampshire) as an example, > does this page _definitely_ confirm that their RoW data is available under > OGL? > > > > https://www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/opendatasearch/publicrightsofway > > > Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do > something with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local > county. > > > Thanks, > > Nick > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Adam Snape <adam.c.sn...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 30 May 2018 11:37:47 > *To:* Nick Whitelegg > *Cc:* Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); talk-gb > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data > > Hi, > > Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use. > Many councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then > state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms. > > Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job, > the rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few > references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence > terms differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is > taken at face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS > modified OGL ie. the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most > seriously, rowmaps also relies on a misinterpretation of communication with > OS to suggest that OS Open Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3 > licenced material. > > All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM > purposes as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity. > > Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with > all of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly > licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them). > I'll also try and get new or updated data where not currently available or > several years old. Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear > unambiguous licence on their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the > relevant communication online so that it is verifiable and we do at least > have certainty about the data currently available to us. > > In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all > authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data, > rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update > their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this > automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems > that only a minority of authorities who have released data currently > publish it proactively. > > Kind regards, > > Adam > > > On 27 May 2018 at 11:21, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should > theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data. > > > Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more > interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped > on OSM. > > > Nick > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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