<!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">
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>Re: Re: [Talk-GB] Fwd: Re: Other Routes with Public Access</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:30:56 +0100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Mike Harris <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mikh@delco.idps.co.uk"><mikh@delco.idps.co.uk></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>Dave F. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:davefox@madasafish.com"><davefox@madasafish.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dave<br>
<br>
Some of the documentation to which I have access as a member of the
public uses the acronym ORPA, some spells it out.<br>
<br>
The following quotes are from "Rights of Way: A Guide to Law and
Practice", 4th Edition; John Riddall and John Trevelyan (2007).<br>
<br>
A. "... the Hobhouse Committee recommended (paragraph 45 of its
[1947] report) that the information contained in those [definitive]
maps should also be shown on OS maps. ... that recommendation was
accepted in 1958 by OS ..."<br>
<br>
IMHO this indicates that the data on definitive maps is not the
property of the OS. Rather that a government Committee recommended
that they make use of it and they agreed. Thus it is - in this
respect - the OS map that is a derivative work rather than the
definitive map. Any copyright issues therefore relate to the Highway
Authority's definitive map and not to the derived OS map.<br>
<br>
B. "...They [the OS Explorer© maps] also show 'other routes with
public access' (ORPAs). These are routes which are not shown on the
definitive map and not shown coloured on the OS map, (thereby
leading to uncertainty about their status) but which are recorded in
the highway authority's list of streets ..."<br>
<br>
C. "...Section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980 requires every highway
authority to make, and keep up to date, a list of streets within its
area which are highways maintainable at public expense. The list
must be available for inspection [by the general public] free of
charge at the council's offices ... some authorities regard
themselves as complying with section 36(6) by maintaining the
relevant information in the form of a map ... there will be many
streets shown in the list which do not appear on the definitive map
... the inclusion of a way on the list of streets is evidence of no
more than that it is a highway, inclusion of a way on the list gives
no guidance as to the nature of the rights that exist over it (other
than that inclusion on the list foes prove that at least a right of
way on foot exists) ..."<br>
<br>
IMHO B and C together indicate that information contained in the
list of streets has nothing whatsoever to do with the OS and lies in
the public domain.<br>
<br>
I would deduce (possibly incorrectly, but not assume or guess) that
if the OS choose to depict upon their maps something that lies in
the public domain they cannot then claim copyright over it. The
question is then whether the phrase or acronym by which they choose
to describe it is subject to copyright or whether others may use the
phrase or acronym without a licence to do so. In other words, I
deduce that there is no problem for OSM over depiction of the way
(always assuming - by which in this instance I mean "on condition
that" - the way has either been surveyed on the ground (as all mine
are) or are derived from a legitimate licence-free source. Nor is
there any difficulty over adding a key or value that states that the
way - if an ORPA - has public rights on foot. When (if?) OSM says
something is an ORPA, this is surely shorthand for saying that it
does not appear on the definitive map but does appear on the list of
streets.<br>
<br>
The question is only what may we call it, i.e. whether we are free
to use this shorthand. The use of the acronym "ORPA" or the phrase
"other routes with public access" is a term invented by the OS. Does
this mean that as a result we cannot use the term? I would be
interested to hear views from others on this specific point.<br>
<br>
At present - but subject to change - my own view is that:<br>
<br>
- the OS never wished to (nor could) restrict the use of the phrase
or acronym - indeed it is difficult to discuss ORPAs unless we do
use the phrase or acronym!<br>
- they cannot (and I doubt they would wish to) restrict the use of
the information that the way has rights of access on foot - they
themselves got this information from someone else (the highway
authority) who has a statutory obligation to make that information
public.<br>
- they might wish to restrict the copying of the way itself from
some of their maps (but no difference here from anything else on a
restricted OS map) and we shouldn't do it.<br>
<br>
<br>
In other words:<br>
<br>
- the depiction of the way is OK subject to the usual OSM conditions
(approximately: surveyed on the ground by us or derived from a
licence-free source).<br>
<br>
- the information as to rights on the way is OK if not simply
derived from its depiction as an ORPA on an OS map but from its
presence in the list of streets and absence from the definitive map
(or other non-OS sources of such information).<br>
<br>
- as to the usefulness, I would submit that it is useful to know
that public rights on (at least) foot exist - i.e. as opposed to
other ways where no such rights exist - even if we don't know about
'higher rights'.<br>
<br>
- could we do this simply by using a "designation" or "access" tag?
- possibly. But can we all agree how to do so - I doubt it based on
past experience of other similar designation matters in our mailing
lists and wiki!<br>
<br>
- do we want to distinguish between the rights (at least on foot)
existing on an ORPA from those different rights (on foot) existing
on a footpath? I would have thought it useful in a database (such as
OSM) to log what rights are known to exist. Others might think this
too detailed - but I have never seen an instruction that we should
draw a line (how?) as to how much detail to include in OSM.<br>
<br>
<br>
The use of the acronym "ORPA" or the phrase "other routes with
public access" is a term invented by the OS but does this prevent
others using the neologism? We invented the acronym "OSM" and the
phrase "OpenStreetMap" - but could we - even if we wished to -
exercise some rights of the use of the acronym or phrase? Especially
after it had entered the common language?<br>
<br>
If there is a problem in some people's minds with using the terms
"ORPA" or "other route with public access" within OSM there would
seem to be several possible solutions. What do others think?<br>
<br>
1. Ask the OS whether we may freely use the acronym or phrase in our
tagging of a route where we have the information from sources other
than the OS (i.e the defined combination of the definitive map and
the list of streets)?<br>
<br>
2. Change all references in the OSM database from "ORPA" or "other
route with public access" to "foot=yes" and/or "designation=[new
value to be decided]", e.g. "designation = PAALF [public access at
least on foot]"?<br>
<br>
Those interested might like to look at web sites owned by the
various off-road associations in England who themselves have endless
discussions about whether or not trail riders etc. may use ORPAs
(they at least seem to care about ORPAs!). At least they are not shy
about using the acronym to designate what they are discussing.<br>
<br>
Finally: a related series of questions<br>
<br>
Sometimes when I survey a path on the ground that purports to be a
public right of way (e.g. by waymarking and/or presence of
furniture, etc.) I know from other (non-OS) sources that the line on
the ground differs significantly from the actual legal line of the
public right of way. Waymarking has no legal significance (I am
authorised to put them up myself although I would refrain from doing
so in practice if I knew the route was off-line; I would instead
discuss with the mapping anomalies people in my authority). If the
path on the ground is nevertheless the only reasonably walkable path
(and especially if it has been waymarked and/or furnished - rightly
or wrongly) I would want to put this route into the OSM database
rather than the legal line. But I would want to add a note (as a
note= tag) to the effect that it is not the public right of way (I
don't want to be the one to encourage someone to trespass).<br>
<br>
If the legal route is not even walkable I would not normally map it
- I would only map the path on the ground. But if the legal route is
also walkable and identifiable without the use of OS mapping, I
would want to map this as well and add appropriate designation
and/or access tags.<br>
<br>
Now, if the OS also shows one or the other route I might ideally
want to indicate which is correct in law and which is the
'customary' route and what can actually be walked. But may I do
this? It is a fact of life that the OS map is often wrong and often
depicts as a right of way a line that is not the one shown on the
definitive map and/or one that is not the (only) walkable route on
the ground and/or the route that is waymarked and furnished. This
is why the OS has a rider/disclaimer on all of its maps. I believe
that it is useful for people to know whether a route shown on the OS
map has rights and/or whether such a route is even walkable.
Ideally, OSM would be a more accurate and current source of
information. But can we indicate this - e.g. in a note= tag - as we
can only know that the OS is wrong by looking at the OS map!<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Mike Harris<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19:59, Dave F. wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:%3C4D8D0C55.20306@madasafish.com%3E"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
On 24/03/2011 16:09, Mike Harris wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Dave<br>
<br>
I am interested in your opinion but please hold back slightly
from giving me instructions as to what to do or not do. There
might be other opinions.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Uh?<br>
My initial post was a question, your first reply was an
instruction!<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<br>
My use of the verb "assume" was more to ask for other opinions -
and thank you for yours - than to claim that my personal
assumption (or anyone else's for that matter) was a valid basis
for OSM work. Assumption differs from guessing inasmuch as there
needs to be at least some basis for the former!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I've looked it up, and nowhere does it say that making an
assumption is asking for opinion:<br>
<br>
assume<br>
1. To authenticate by means of belief; to surmise; to suppose
to be true, especially without proof.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<br>
To help me decide where I stand, please could you provide me
with the evidence for your statement that the acronym "ORPA" is
copyright to the OS? </blockquote>
<br>
I didn't say that, which I think you know. Taking information from
copyrighted data is illegal.<br>
<br>
Seeing as you failed to answer previously, I'll ask my question
again - Do these lists use the name ORPA?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">I
have not seen it registered as a trade mark or similar? but
perhaps I have missed that. Does the copyright you mention
extend to the English language phrase "other routes with public
access" - I would have thought that such a phrase would be
difficult to protect with copyright?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
If OS came up with the phrase & are its only users, I would
say not, & err on the side of caution. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
I won't enter hear into the debate as to whether OSM should
record only and exclusively what can be seen on the ground as
this has been discussed endlessly. I suspect that your opinion
is currently a minority view. It seems to me that there are
countless (in all sorts of contexts) examples of people
including in the database information that cannot be seen on the
ground e.g. the "source" tag.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's disappointing you misinterpreted by comment as being
exclusive; but maybe you needed to, to further your contrariness.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D8B6CAD.9000605@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<br>
Let's not get too dictatorial in this discussion!<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Pot, kettle. See my initial point above.<br>
<br>
----------------<br>
<br>
Back to ORPA. <br>
<br>
With it using the vagueness of 'other' I'm failing to see it's
usefulness. It only tells us what it is not & gives no
indication of what it actually represents. <br>
<br>
The alternative tags of foot, horse etc. are better used as they
can be verified by other means than the OS. <br>
In the cases of use I mentioned, the removal of ORPA did not
reduce the accuracy of the ways.<br>
<br>
*If* OS is the only source then I believe it should be be removed
for reasons already stated.<br>
<br>
Dave F.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b>Mike Harris</b></div>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b><i>Mike Harris</i></b></div>
</body>
</html>