There is no legal obligation for FoI responses to be openly licensed. The point of FoI is to make information available for inspection, but not (necessarily) for reuse.
I suspect that their response to that request would probably stand up to appeal. On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 12:55, Edward Bainton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are there grounds to appeal that decision? > > I don't know for sure, but I would have thought the point of FOI is to make > info generally accessible. > > If payment allows you to do nothing useful with the data because it's wrapped > in restrictive licence conditions (which I'm sure it would be), then it's not > "accessible" in the relevant sense. > > On Sat, 26 Sep 2020, 11:29 Nick, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The update on the FOIA request >> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr is >> worth a read!! Makes you wonder at the value of releasing open data that has >> limited value to the public? >> >> On 01/08/2020 20:24, Nick wrote: >> >> As a follow up, Robert Whittaker also submitted an FOI asking for "... a >> list of all UPRNs that are classified as 'historic', and a separate list of >> all those classified as a 'parent' ....". the logicto me was that this would >> help users of Open Data to then filter these out. The response that this was >> "exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the FOIA" - if you are >> interested follow the link to >> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lists_of_historic_and_parent_upr >> >> I was also interested regarding the details of the batch allocation to each >> custodian. So apart from the commercial value, this is unlikely to be >> published as apparently this might be misleading due to the randomness of >> the data and likely to be out of date quickly. >> >> So much for the potential for collaboration with the various authorities. >> >> On 06/07/2020 15:10, Nick wrote: >> >> Hi Jez >> >> To clarify, what I did was to find a 'suspicious' UPRN (two pins on one >> building with different address details). I then looked up the address on an >> online system (e.g. OneScotlandGazetteer or the local authority online >> Planning system) to check the details (UPRN and address). That allowed me to >> have details, which in this instance I then checked property sites (e.g. >> ESPC) to verify the 'likely' error. >> >> If you want more details of the example, let me know and I can put a bit >> more detail together. >> >> Cheers >> >> Nick >> >> On 06/07/2020 12:34, Jez Nicholson wrote: >> >> Sorry, i mean 'findmyaddress'. >> >> Also, from this Twitter thread >> https://twitter.com/jnicho02/status/1279821108783579139?s=20 I note that >> some streets have a UPRN. Existing services filter them out. >> >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:29 Jez Nicholson, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Do you mean that you looked up the UPRN on findmystreet and it's supposedly >>> in a different location to the latlon in the file? >>> >>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 12:26 Nick, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> So I have just started with my crude system and already found one UPRN >>>> that looks as if it is in the wrong location (wrong postcode 6BT > 6ST ~ >>>> and wrong county). If I am correct, then this demonstrates the value of >>>> opening up data to more 'eyes'. Not sure how we could collate all lists >>>> of anomalies to demonstrate this to government. >>>> >>>> On 06/07/2020 12:09, Nick wrote: >>>> > I went for the crude approach as my computer is not that powerful, so >>>> > I split the CSV into chunks and imported batches into QGIS with >>>> > county/postcode boundaries as my interest is trying to understand how >>>> > the UPRNs have been batched. Not elegant but means that I now can >>>> > focus on our area and identify those UPRNs that are most useful to me >>>> > for plotting missing rural properties. I can then write a script to >>>> > only give me those UPRNs of interest. As I say, crude but useful to me >>>> > as I can now start to match addresses to UPRN when I add properties. >>>> > >>>> > On 05/07/2020 20:56, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote: >>>> >> On 05.07.2020 18:45, Kai Michael Poppe - OSM wrote: >>>> >>> On 05.07.2020 17:51, Andy Mabbett wrote: >>>> >>>> Naive question - can that be added as a layer in JOSM? If so, how? >>>> >>> I'll have to check whether I can manage that anyway with the new server >>>> >>> now. Will come back to this. >>>> >> Meh. 3 hours in, every possible lead I had didn't bring me closer to >>>> >> setting up the UPRN data in the same way. >>>> >> >>>> >> Having 6 GiB of GeoPackage or 2 GiB of MySQL data doesn't make working >>>> >> with the data any easier. >>>> >> >>>> >> I will look out for help from the GeoServer people during the week, >>>> >> watch this space :) >>>> >> >>>> >> K >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> >> [email protected] >>>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Talk-GB mailing list >>>> > [email protected] >>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-GB mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-GB mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Russ Garrett [email protected] _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
