<!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">
Hi<br>
<br>
The council concerned was Cheshire County Council - which is now two
Councils as it was split under Local Government Reorganisation into
Cheshire East and Cheshire West & Chester who have not revoked
the earlier position. But I would want to be careful not to
overstate what they are saying.<br>
<br>
They are saying it is OK to use the public rights of way
information shown on the "definitive map" (and described in the
corresponding "definitive statements") as this is seen as data which
the public can use as of right. They are not saying that we can
"use" the definitive map per se as (whether or not it meets the
description of a "derived work") it is a composite of the underlying
OS mapping and the lines that are drawn on it showing the public
rights of way based on the original surveys and research by the then
Local Authority - physically drawn originally and now as a separate
GIS layer in the current definitive map copies. The ONLY data that I
use is the numbering of the rights of way (which is used as an
identifier e.g. if a member of the public wants to talk to them
about a way). This information is also held by them and made
publicly available as an Excel spreadsheet (no map). To be extra
careful I ONLY map in OSM ways which I have physically walked in
person and for which I have personally recorded a GPS trace - but I
do add the descriptor from the information that the Council says I
may use. For this reason, the line of a way that I might draw on OSM
might differ from the line on the OS map (as I always walk the
definitive line if it is physically possible as well as walking the
line shown on the OS map). IMHO with these permissions, caveats and
provisos I can use the identifiers (path status and number) from
Council sources. The absolute 'must' for me is that I have
personally "walked the line" and recorded my own GPS trace (from my
GPS receiver) and annotations (from my digital voice recorder).<br>
<br>
I would be careful with FOI for the reasons stated by Tim and - in
practical terms - because an FOI costs the Council a great deal of
money (and they have none) and would likely harm otherwise excellent
relations.<br>
<br>
Cheshire West has also just completed a very detailed on-the-ground
survey of the PRoW network in their area using (a lot of) public
money to pay a contractor to use top-of-the-range GPS and
photography of every stile, gate, details of path surface, level of
disabled access etc. Unfortunately they are still trying to find
out how to use the software output properly in GIS (or elsewhere)
(!!) and also how to redact from the data confidential information
such as the names and addresses of landowners and tenants. We are
making slow progress on these technical issues but if they are
resolved at the technical level I intend then to tackle with them
the issue of whether this (much more detailed) data can be made
available for OSM purposes (don't hold your breath - the wheels move
VERY slowly) as it would appear to be uncontaminated by the dreaded
OS!<br>
<br>
As for OS out-of-copyright 7th Series in this area there are many
very significant differences from the present day status of ways as
rights of way so - even if the paths still exist where shown on the
7th srs mapping I would personally not dare to assume anything about
status as rights of way as based on the mapping. Indeed even the
most current OS digital mapping has many errors despite the work the
Council (and I and my colleagues!) do to notify OS of changes to the
PRoW network - and errors persist for 10 years or more before the OS
catch up.<br>
<br>
Hope that the above is clear and uncontroversial - but knowing OSM I
doubt the latter (smiles!).<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
On 21/04/2011 13:50, TimSC wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DB0281C.3080605@sheerman-chase.org.uk"
type="cite">On 21/04/11 12:14, Graham Stewart wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Where do we stand if I manually create a
way (i.e. by tracing from Bing
<br>
imagery or by surveying it) and then refer to this published
definitive
<br>
map to determine if it is a designated footpath/bridleway/BOAT?
(And
<br>
possibly get other details that could be used in tags/notes like
an
<br>
identifier).
<br>
<br>
Presumably this would be using the council's data and we would
need some
<br>
form of agreement with them?
<br>
</blockquote>
The most I do is to compare the maps and how well or badly we are
doing. It might also "inspire me" to go and find a footpath in the
real world. In the end, all data should come from direct
observations (or legally compatible data sets). I usually take
extra care to photograph the signs and upload traces to show we
actually surveyed things. I would strongly advise against taking
the classification or route number from any council map or data
set without permission (and some apparently do have permission).
(Robert just made the same point.)
<br>
<br>
If we can get agreement from them and OS, we can use the data in
OSM. Some councils seem to have a more permissive attitude. Mike
Harris mentions two councils that have no restriction on the
definitive map (as long as the underlying OS map not covered) [1].
Mike, which council's are these, and are they willing to make a
public statement? (An FOI can be used to force a response, but
strictly speaking, FOI should be used for fractal data, not
interpretation of law.) Contrary to Robert's view, I don't think
FOI can be used to get the information directly, as the FOI
response is still copyright.
<br>
<br>
I still think that the PSMA exemption route might be necessary,
because it seems likely to me the definitive map is a derivative
work from OS maps. If anyone has relevant contacts in local
authorities, please make them aware of the option and encourage
them to take it. The council might release the data as "free to
use" or as OGL or Opendata, and I am not sure if the OGL or
Opendata is compatible with the CTs... (I suspect it isn't.)
<br>
<br>
If you have patience, the OS 7th series sheets that are coming out
of copyright and have rights of way on them. Of course they are 50
years out of date... (but it's mostly accurate in my experience).
<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-March/011269.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-March/011269.html</a>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">(God how I hate licensing/copyright
issues!)
<br>
</blockquote>
I second that motion.
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
<br>
TimSC
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b><i>Mike Harris</i></b></div>
</body>
</html>