<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Little note to say: Mini-Mapping Party - Glasgow - Saturday 22 May<BR><BR><BR>10.30am at the Centre of Contemporary Arts (Electron Club), 350 Sauchiehall Street<BR><BR><BR><BR>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_Party/Glasgow<BR><BR><BR>all welcome!<BR><BR><BR>Tim<BR><BR>> From: talk-gb-request@openstreetmap.org<BR>> Subject: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19<BR>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<BR>> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:00:09 +0100<BR>> <BR>> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to<BR>> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<BR>> <BR>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb<BR>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>> talk-gb-request@openstreetmap.org<BR>> <BR>> You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>> talk-gb-owner@openstreetmap.org<BR>> <BR>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Today's Topics:<BR>> <BR>> 1. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB))<BR>> 2. Re: National Byway cycle route (Dave F.)<BR>> 3. Re: National Byway cycle route (Sam Vekemans)<BR>> 4. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists))<BR>> 5. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists))<BR>> 6. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (James Davis)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 1<BR>> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:43:09 +0100<BR>> From: "Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)"<BR>> <robert.whittaker+osm-talk-gb@gmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source<BR>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <AANLkTilfdm75JmvDnmQLGJ9VOeVyv9QNnubYsQBNcQpE@mail.gmail.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn <info@dynoyo.plus.com> wrote:<BR>> > In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS<BR>> > layer. ?But for each parish, they also publish a text description of<BR>> > each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. ?Useful as not all<BR>> > real-world physical signs have the number. ?So using that with the NPE<BR>> > layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the<BR>> > present ROWs.<BR>> ><BR>> > Anyone see any problems with this method?<BR>> <BR>> If the textural descriptions (known as the "Definitive Statement")<BR>> have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than<BR>> just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a<BR>> derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging<BR>> to OS.<BR>> <BR>> I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to<BR>> comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert<BR>> legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take.<BR>> <BR>> On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS<BR>> consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived<BR>> data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data.<BR>> <BR>> Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the<BR>> definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which<BR>> crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have<BR>> been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may<BR>> not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of<BR>> the current public rights of way.<BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> Robert Whittaker<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 2<BR>> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:06:19 +0100<BR>> From: "Dave F." <davefox@madasafish.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route<BR>> To: Richard Fairhurst <richard@systemeD.net><BR>> Cc: OSM - Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><BR>> Message-ID: <4BE9E2EB.2090608@madasafish.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed<BR>> <BR>> Richard Fairhurst wrote:<BR>> > "Serious Cyclists..."<BR>> Oh, yes, your absolutely right. If you've got panniers attached you <BR>> _must_ be so much more serious than anybody else.<BR>> <BR>> > (Cycling Active magazine keeps running features on it) but no-one else has ever even heard of it.<BR>> That says more about the magazine & its minimal clique readership.<BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> I agree it needs a separate designation.<BR>> <BR>> Dave F.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 3<BR>> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:16:43 -0700<BR>> From: Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatrails@gmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route<BR>> To: "Dave F." <davefox@madasafish.com><BR>> Cc: OSM - Talk GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>, Richard Fairhurst<BR>> <richard@systemed.net><BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <AANLkTilPiR3qqLItrNT7Xt3xtq8ftZjOH9-k7XarYmIQ@mail.gmail.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> Ok cool, so i can pretend that 'route=recreation' exists and that it<BR>> renders at the same zoom level as NCN and that is purpose is to map<BR>> signed recreation routes that are NOT road cycling designated.<BR>> And specicially for nationally confusing trails, such as the 'Trans<BR>> Canada Trail'.<BR>> <BR>> I'll work on some documentation on the wiki (if its not done already)<BR>> <BR>> .... Athough 'NSN' National Smooth Network' gets my vote :-)<BR>> <BR>> cheers,<BR>> Sam<BR>> <BR>> On 5/11/10, Dave F. <davefox@madasafish.com> wrote:<BR>> > Richard Fairhurst wrote:<BR>> >> "Serious Cyclists..."<BR>> > Oh, yes, your absolutely right. If you've got panniers attached you<BR>> > _must_ be so much more serious than anybody else.<BR>> ><BR>> >> (Cycling Active magazine keeps running features on it) but no-one else has<BR>> >> ever even heard of it.<BR>> > That says more about the magazine & its minimal clique readership.<BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > I agree it needs a separate designation.<BR>> ><BR>> > Dave F.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > Talk-GB mailing list<BR>> > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<BR>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -- <BR>> Twitter: @Acrosscanada<BR>> Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/<BR>> http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com<BR>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans<BR>> Skype: samvekemans<BR>> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org<BR>> @Acrosscanadatrails<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 4<BR>> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:36:50 +0100<BR>> From: "Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\)" <ajrlists@googlemail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source<BR>> To: "'Ian Spencer'" <ianmspencer@gmail.com>,<BR>> <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAOKaD4mR3JBOrEpRon92nMgBANp/H2q5kHFIvKMsnZiQaZAAAAABxJAAABAAAACNLhTU9Ce4SJvSshIGVQqWAQAAAAA=@googlemail.com><BR>> <BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<BR>> <BR>> Couple of comments on this in addition to the responses by others.<BR>> <BR>> 1. The definitive information is not always on a map. For instance, local<BR>> footpath rights of way can be found in text form in many libraries. Its<BR>> pretty easy to then correlate the description information with a walk of a<BR>> particular path. Don't be surprised to find there are mismatches.<BR>> 2. Although local authorities are responsible for maintaining public<BR>> footpaths not all treat them in the same way. I know for a fact that the OS<BR>> does not survey footpath changes outside of urban areas, so again the<BR>> definitive information will be with the LA, and it might be in text form or<BR>> it might be on an OS map (or both).<BR>> <BR>> My best advice is to pop into your local library first and see what they<BR>> have. Their docs may be a bit out of date but is a good and easy place to<BR>> start and you can always go back to the LA with any queries.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers<BR>> <BR>> Andy<BR>> <BR>> >-----Original Message-----<BR>> >From: talk-gb-bounces@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-<BR>> >bounces@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ian Spencer<BR>> >Sent: 11 May 2010 10:55 AM<BR>> >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<BR>> >Subject: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source<BR>> ><BR>> >(Newbie alert!!) I suspect this has been discussed before, but it seems to<BR>> >me that there is a big hole in open source mapping, and that is getting<BR>> >hold of definitive maps in electronic form to be able to document them.<BR>> ><BR>> >I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be<BR>> >freely available. (???!!!)<BR>> ><BR>> >What I am interested in is the gaps between the footpaths people recognise<BR>> >and those which are registered on the definitive lists as there is a<BR>> >deadline in around 10 years for getting missing paths registered.<BR>> ><BR>> >I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their<BR>> >areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in<BR>> >electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not<BR>> >released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with<BR>> >the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released?<BR>> ><BR>> >I've read the tagging "controversy" and it seems there is a lack of<BR>> >finality on tagging - is there anyone trying to resolve this? In the end,<BR>> >only the OS maps seem to have legal status, but they aren't releasing<BR>> >footpaths :(<BR>> ><BR>> >Anyway, just off for some Coast to Coast cycling...<BR>> ><BR>> >Cheers!<BR>> ><BR>> >Spenny<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>> >Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10<BR>> >19:40:00<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 5<BR>> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:53:23 +0100<BR>> From: "Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\)" <ajrlists@googlemail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source<BR>> To: "'Robert Whittaker \(OSM Talk GB\)'"<BR>> <robert.whittaker+osm-talk-gb@gmail.com>, <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAOKaD4mR3JBOrEpRon92nMgBANp/H2q5kHFIvKMsnZiQaZAAAAABxJAAABAAAABsoS9U47G+TLjE629AevAQAQAAAAA=@googlemail.com><BR>> <BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> <BR>> Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)<BR>> >Sent: 11 May 2010 11:43 PM<BR>> >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<BR>> >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source<BR>> ><BR>> >On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn <info@dynoyo.plus.com> wrote:<BR>> >> In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS<BR>> >> layer. ?But for each parish, they also publish a text description of<BR>> >> each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. ?Useful as not all<BR>> >> real-world physical signs have the number. ?So using that with the NPE<BR>> >> layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the<BR>> >> present ROWs.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Anyone see any problems with this method?<BR>> ><BR>> >If the textural descriptions (known as the "Definitive Statement")<BR>> >have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than<BR>> >just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a<BR>> >derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging<BR>> >to OS.<BR>> <BR>> Having read quite a few of these I've yet to see any real evidence that the<BR>> statement has been prepared from a map. Each time I've looked that them to<BR>> me the read the other way around, that someone has translated the statement<BR>> onto the map. The reason I say this is because sometimes the maps miss some<BR>> of the subtle detail described in the statement. Bearing in mind that the<BR>> statements form part of the legal paper chase between the LA and the<BR>> landowner and lawyers always tend to work with words, I'm confident that<BR>> statements don?t include OS data. I also consider statements fair game, and<BR>> have added all the footpath referencing for my local area by reference to<BR>> them, though for the route on the ground I only trust the GPS and the<BR>> physical way marked or trodden route. <BR>> <BR>> ><BR>> >I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to<BR>> >comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert<BR>> >legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take.<BR>> ><BR>> >On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS<BR>> >consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived<BR>> >data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data.<BR>> ><BR>> >Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the<BR>> >definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which<BR>> >crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have<BR>> >been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may<BR>> >not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of<BR>> >the current public rights of way.<BR>> <BR>> My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with<BR>> subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its<BR>> easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the changes that<BR>> have occurred periodically with time. Updates in my area seem to be about<BR>> every 20 years or so.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers<BR>> <BR>> Andy<BR>> <BR>> ><BR>> >--<BR>> >Robert Whittaker<BR>> ><BR>> >_______________________________________________<BR>> >Talk-GB mailing list<BR>> >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<BR>> >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb<BR>> ><BR>> >No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<BR>> >Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10<BR>> >19:40:00<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 6<BR>> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:05:37 +0100<BR>> From: James Davis <jamesd@jml.net><BR>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source<BR>> To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org><BR>> Message-ID: <4BEA6F61.8080807@jml.net><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with<BR>> > subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its<BR>> > easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the changes that<BR>> > have occurred periodically with time. Updates in my area seem to be about<BR>> > every 20 years or so.<BR>> <BR>> This looks like it varies a lot by area. I recently went to view the<BR>> definitive map for our area and it was a bit of a mishmash. Everything<BR>> is currently on paper, with no electronic records at all and I'm not at<BR>> all convinced that there's any clear separation between data that<BR>> belongs to the OS and data that belongs to the local authority.<BR>> <BR>> I spotted no differences between the data on the definitive map and the<BR>> latest OS mapping of the area, but there are still plenty of<BR>> inconsistencies to be found:<BR>> <BR>> - I've found rights of way referred to in other council documents that<BR>> aren't marked on either.<BR>> - I've found accessible and open footpaths that clearly at some stage,<BR>> by their construction, were being maintained by the local authority but<BR>> aren't recorded.<BR>> - I've found rights of way that terminate at a parish boundary, with the<BR>> physical track on the ground continuing and being open to users, but<BR>> with no records of where the right of way disappeared to.<BR>> <BR>> Having access to the prow data would be great but I'm no longer<BR>> convinced by it's definitiveness :)<BR>> <BR>> James<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Talk-GB mailing list<BR>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<BR>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19<BR>> ***************************************<BR> <br /><hr />Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/' target='_new'>Sign-up now.</a></body>
</html>