There's a current page on the Ordnance Survey website with a download of the legacy Trig Archive. It says the data is re-usable as open data under the Open Government Licence:
Click on 'Read more': https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/geodesy-positioning/legacy-data/trig-search -- Owen Boswarva On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 14:41, Graham Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Chris, > thanks for the reply. Is your work also around OS trigpoint data, or some > other dataset? > Licensing indeed - back in 2016 @gregrs approached the OS (it's listed on > the wiki page for trigpoints), and their response at that time was positive: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Gregrs/Ordnance_Survey_triangulation_stations/Licence_emails > > I'm starting with the presumption that that still holds - but we should > indeed verify that before an import, no doubt in the import proposal page > phase. > > Graham > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 13:19, Chris Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, Graham. >> >> Just for wider knowledge, I'm doing some work at the moment, along >> similar lines, but in support of an app, not a bulk import. >> >> Stating the obvious, before any bulk imports are considered, the source >> data licensing would need to be checked. >> >> I suspect people have been round this bouy a few times, so I'll step >> back, now. >> >> Chris >> chris_debian >> >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2026, 12:01 , <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to >>> [email protected] >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> [email protected] >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> [email protected] >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..." >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Revisiting OS trigpoints - viability of importing? () >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Graham Whaley <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: >>> Bcc: >>> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:55:01 +0100 >>> Subject: [Talk-GB] Revisiting OS trigpoints - viability of importing? >>> Hello, >>> first time poster here. I've done a very few small submissions to OSM >>> in the past (user gwhaley), and just restarted updating small items around >>> my location (having spotted some new bins and benches etc. appearing). >>> >>> During that work I realised the trigpoints near me are not in OSM, >>> which led me down the path to this very useful wiki page from @gregrs >>> around 2016: >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_triangulation_stations >>> and a small related discussion on the list around 2019: >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2019-July/023176.html >>> >>> This inspired me to grab the current datasets and do some crunching. >>> I've posted my code and findings on github at: >>> https://github.com/grahamwhaley/OSM_UK_trigpoints >>> >>> I'd like to discuss if the community think it is viable to import a >>> bunch of OS trigpoint data? I think it is. I don't think we could automate >>> every trigpoint found in the OS data (see below and/or the github page for >>> details), but I think there is scope to import the vast majority of OS >>> trigpoints as nodes. Of course any import would follow the path of >>> following the import guidelines, writing an import plan and >>> approaching/announcing to the wider community before any automation >>> occurred. I'd also fully expect to do some dry runs and some smaller region >>> imports before doing the bulk of the data. I'd also gladly welcome any >>> help, reviews etc. >>> >>> I'll drop a few statistics here... >>> >>> - The OS trigpoint database has 6081 'live' pillars >>> - The OSM database has 2804 items purporting to be trigpoints - 2560 >>> after some filtering >>> - The OS benchmark data (which gives us FlushBracket numbers) has 3703 >>> useable entries >>> >>> After some data crunching and filtering (see the github page - but I >>> fully expect to adapt and refine the current code), we end up with the 6081 >>> OS nodes being classified into the following groups: >>> >>> - 60 OS entries that seem to align with existing OSM entries so likely >>> need no or little change >>> - 4440 potential 'new' OSM trigpoint entries - entries from the OS data >>> that do not seem to align with any existing OSM nodes >>> - 246 'editable' entries, where an OS entry nearly aligns with an OSM >>> entry, but we could 'coerce' the OSM entry to match the OS entry >>> - 1335 entries that could do with human review - the OS and OSM entries >>> are both similar and different (for example, might have matching names but >>> different FB numbers), and we could try and figure out why and what to do >>> in each instance. >>> >>> I have some ideas about how to proceed, but obviously would like >>> community input. My overview thoughts are: >>> >>> - Adding the 4440 'new' OS trigpoints feels like the least risk, as it >>> would not be trying to duplicate or modify any existing OSM nodes >>> - The 'editable' nodes might be moderately easy to apply after a fairly >>> thorough human review of the changes. >>> - The 1335 entries that could do with human review - maybe we can get >>> them on a >>> site like/similar to Survey Me or FHODOT to make them accessible for >>> ongoing community review. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> Graham >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
