<!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 bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
Peter<br>
<br>
Your first two paragraphs are factually correct i.e. as to the
precedence of the Definitive Statement over the Definitive Map. I
would share your interpretation of the new derived data rules as to
the effect that has on freedom of use - although I might go a tad
further in arguing that the data has always been free to use so long
as the use did not include the OS base mapping.<br>
<br>
You are also correct in pointing out that the numbering of the PRoW
never appears on OS maps and is generated by the HA, who - in my
case at least - state that it is in the public domain. The numbering
systems used vary a bit but usually include an acronym that states
the type of fight of way e.g. FP, BR, RB, BOAT.<br>
<br>
I have more or less the same understanding of how the OS use the
definitive map copies. The generated raster mapping is, I think,
used as a GIS layer to produce the published maps etc. We often hear
from the OS or the Highway Authority that an error in the OS
published mapping (e.g. the path being shown on the wrong side of a
boundary fence or hedge) is due to poor registration between GIS
layers. This where OSM is so useful as our on-the-ground surveying
corrects these OS errors and saves people walking the length of a
long field on the wrong side of the hedge and then having to retrace
their steps!<br>
<br>
The particular HAs that I deal with do allow tracing of rights of
way from the definitive map - although this is rarely done any more
as they have also they have also put a 'working copy' of the
definitive map on the web - with a clear caveat regarding the
copyright of the base map (but not the overlay data). Having said
that, OSM on-the-ground work (and independent surveys done for the
HA) show hundreds of anomalies!<br>
<br>
My HAs do have data sets of PRoWs with no map at all. They do use OS
grid references in this database - but they could as easily have
used latitude and longitude.<br>
<br>
One further point: may HAs have very bare definitive statements -
far less detailed than the law requires of them. My own HAs admit
they are in breach of their statutory duties in this regard but have
no plans to remedy this as they have no money (usual story).<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
On 19:59, Peter Miller wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:%3CAANLkTint39BJTdv81uNG1Y7qidDm2Rhqftd7=kGkQeQK@mail.gmail.com%3E"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 24 March 2011 13:56, Luke Smith <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:luke.smith@grough.co.uk">luke.smith@grough.co.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> As I understand it,
there is both a written record of where the rights of way go
and the definitive map is in addition, with the written
record taking precedence?<br>
<br>
So if a local authority is drawing their map, and it's
offset from the line of a wall for example from OS
MasterMap, as the written record might say, then it wouldn't
represent the wall, nor be a substitute for it, and it could
be used independently of the OS data. Under the new derived
data rules [1], that seems to make it free to use.<br>
<br>
Copies of the definitive map go to Ordnance Survey and are
used to piece together the 25K and 50K maps, but I'm told
Ordnance Survey don't actually digitize it properly, just
trace it, they claim not to have a vector dataset. <br>
<br>
I don't know how local authorities are storing their data,
but you can be sure they all do it differently. If we could
get our hands on copies of the definitive map to trace
(since the only feature you're copying, was put there by the
LA, not OS), would that do? <br>
<br>
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.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
You make a good point. As far as I am aware the OS now allow
derived works for things drawn on their maps which weren't on
the base map. In the case of rights of way some of them are of
course are on the background OS layer which is a limitation
(see example definite map - link below). As such I don't think
we can use the geometry even if we wanted to.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg">http://rushmerecommon.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/img_1074.jpg</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Here is a nice example of an impossibly right of way where you
would need waders and a canoe to follow the path!<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120">http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=640205&Y=256605&A=Y&Z=120</a><br>
<br>
The thing that I believe we can lift from the definitive maps
with confidence is fact that it is a 'right of way' and the
right of way code. That was not in the OS base map.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/using-and-creating-data-with-os-products/free-to-use-data/index.html"
target="_blank">http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/using-and-creating-data-with-os-products/free-to-use-data/index.html</a>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 24/03/2011 12:20, Peter Miller wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 23 March 2011 19:25, TimSC
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mapping@sheerman-chase.org.uk"
target="_blank">mapping@sheerman-chase.org.uk</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt
0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size:
12px;" lang="x-western">Hi all, <br>
<br>
Here is part of an email I sent to a few
councils regarding rights of way data
(footpaths, bridleways, etc): <br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0,
0, 0);"><br>
I have a big and fairly complicated request
regarding the definitive map. I am
interested in making data more accessible to
the public (as encouraged by central
government [1]). It would be great if the
rights of way data could be released without
restriction, specifically the definite map.
As you probably know, the rights of way data
is derived from Ordnance Survey products
which until now has prevented this data
being released without restriction because
of copyright. However OS will soon introduce
the Public Sector Mapping Agreement which
defines how government bodies can use OS
products [2]. This includes a new mechanism
for public bodies to request datasets that
have been derived from OS products to be
release either licensed as "OS OpenData" or
"Free to Use" (section 2.5 of the license
[3]). <br>
[1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://data.gov.uk/" target="_blank">http://data.gov.uk/</a>
<br>
[2] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/"
target="_blank">http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/</a>
<br>
[3] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/docs/psma-member-licence.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/sectors/government/psma/docs/psma-member-licence.pdf</a>
</blockquote>
<br>
Kent County Council wrote back: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0,
0, 0);">Dear Mr Sheerman-Chase <br>
Thank you for your email. <br>
I will forward your suggestions and comments
to the Head of the Service <br>
and Definitive Map Team. <br>
Kind regards <br>
Countryside Access Service <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Does anyone have any ideas on how to actually
get the councils to apply to OS to exempt
their data and release it? Currently, I get
the impression that they don't rate data
openness as a high priority - they just nod
and smile until I go away. It would be good to
get this data for quality assurance or even
... dun dun dunnnnn... importing. Could we
start a petition? Or use any contacts the
community has to make this happen? Any other
data sets worth liberating? <br>
<br>
Once we have set a precedent, it should be
easier to get other councils to comply,
because of the way the OS exemption process
works. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
Technically I believe that the rights of way on
the OS mapping is derived from the legal
documentation provided by the council. As it
happens I was talking to someone who was in a
position to know about this recently and he said
that the OS don't even claim ownership of rights
of way data.<br>
<br>
Also. my understanding is that Kent are
particularly proactive on open data. This youtube
presentation is worth looking at even though it
seems to be about their map interface. Clearly
they are talking the talk on open data.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sparkdev.co.uk/showcase/show/open-kent"
target="_blank">http://sparkdev.co.uk/showcase/show/open-kent</a><br>
<br>
Here is another link. Carol Patrick seems to be
the person to talk to.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=9274627"
target="_blank">http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=9274627</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt
0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div style="font-family: -moz-fixed; font-size:
12px;" lang="x-western"> <br>
Thoughts? <br>
<br>
Regards, TimSC <br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb"
target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b><i>Mike Harris</i></b></div>
</body>
</html>