<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 24/03/11 16:01, Mike Harris wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6ACA.6040208@delco.idps.co.uk" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Council contacts are absolutely clear that OS makes no claim to PRoW
data - they access it from the Highway Authorities in the same way as
anyone else and are allowed to put it on their maps (although they add
careful legal disclaimers as to its non-authoritative status).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
Thanks for all these ideas!<br>
<br>
I did an FOI request to both Surrey and Kent about if there are legal
restrictions on releasing map data and both replied saying the
definitive map was a derivative work of OS products. That is why I was
interested in PSMA but if we don't need that process, we should avoid
it if possible. Sorry I don't have the original emails at the moment. I
can provide them eventually if you are interested. Which councils allow
PRoW to be used/traced? Have they gone on the record saying that? That
might encourage other councils to be a little more open.<br>
<br>
On 24/03/11 15:50, James Davis wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:41719056-207B-4D41-B9A6-EFAFC71D797D@jml.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Question. Is OSM as a project really that interested in mapping the legal route of the right of way, or are we more interested in the utility of knowing that a track on the ground is considered to follow a right of way and that you can ride your horse/cart/motorbike/bicycle down there without being hassled?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Well having both would not hurt. Most of the tags seem to be geared on
getting the legal status, because it is something we can actually
verify.<br>
<br>
On 24/03/11 15:42, Peter Miller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTint39BJTdv81uNG1Y7qidDm2Rhqftd7=kGkQeQK@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Also... I am less interested in rights of way than in
paths that can
actually be used. There are rights of way around here that are under
water now that the rivers have widened. There are other excellent paths
that are not rights of way.</blockquote>
I agree, but if we can get the PRoW from a high quality source, we can
focus on surveying the remaining permissive paths. If we tried to
resurvey the entire PRoW network, I think it won't be finished in my
life time (because the network is really big and changes over time). <br>
<br>
On 24/03/11 13:56, Luke Smith wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B4DA0.7000808@grough.co.uk" type="cite">I fear
the problem is that even under the exemption process of the PSMA, the
LAs don't have a dataset per se of PRoWs that they could just release,
and might not be able to justify making one.</blockquote>
That thought had crossed my mind. Both Kent and Surrey have the
definitive map in digital form but it might be just OS tile rasters
with the paths drawn on top (for Kent). Surrey provides a map with
layers that can be toggled, so I suspect their PRoW data held is
separately from OS (although they consider it derived from OS). Given
the tiles, it would not be hard to separate the data. This could then
be used in the PSMA exemption procedure. Some councils don't seem to
provide online maps, so perhaps only have paper versions.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.kent.gov.uk/explorekentgis/map.aspx">http://www.kent.gov.uk/explorekentgis/map.aspx</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://surreymaps.surreycc.gov.uk/public/viewer.asp">http://surreymaps.surreycc.gov.uk/public/viewer.asp</a><br>
<br>
On 24/03/11 08:47, Tom Chance wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTimk1V0deB9Bq+QpkiR8dbv=HstPdQ=szf77vjwq@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I would try to secure a face-to-face meeting with your
council's GIS
team, and separately with any teams that are custodians of other data
you're interested in. Ask to talk generally about OpenStreetMap and
raise this in the meeting.</blockquote>
<br>
Good point there!<br>
<br>
TimSC<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>