[Talk-GB] Kent County Council Highways Gazetteer

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Feb 26 22:24:32 GMT 2010 

On 26 Feb 2010, at 18:54, Colin Smale wrote:

> I applied to KCC for permission to use data from their Highways  
> Gazetteer in OSM. They have approved on the condition that the data  
> is attributed to them. My request and their official reply are  
> below. What this gives us is an authorititave source for road  
> numbering and classification in Kent (excluding Medway), although it  
> does require a little bit of thinking as there are no coordinates,  
> only road and place names. So for example we take Whitehill Road and  
> Highcross Road between Longfield and Bean [1] the Gazetteer makes  
> clear that these roads are still officially the B255, even though  
> the signs have not revealed this for years. For the attribution they  
> require I intend to use source:ref=kent.gov.uk.
>
> Which brings me to a dilemma: If a road is ostensibly one type but  
> officially another, how should this be tagged? Both are  
> "verifiable." Traditionally the official classification takes  
> precedence - otherwise the single-track A-roads in the Scottish  
> highlands and islands might better be tagged as as "track" in some  
> cases... The Wiki [2] specifically refers to the Administrative  
> classifications.

We have had this problem in Ipswich. A local mapper did some research  
and identify a number of roads which we apparently still B roads even  
though some were now dead-end service roads down to the docks or other  
very minor roads. We decided to go more on the appearance of the road  
and signs on highway to avoid historical anomalies confusing routers  
and making the map look weird. Road classifications in OSM for the  
town are now partly based on the real classification (where it makes  
sense) and partly based on the level of traffic, width and general  
usefulness as through routes.

Have references for C roads is very handy though given that they are  
used by official people but aren't marked on the highway at all as far  
as I can see.

Well done for sourcing that stuff!

Peter

>
> Another use of this Gazetteer is to arbitrate between road classes,  
> particularly between tertiary (i.e. C-roads) and unclassified, where  
> there is mostly no visible difference "on the ground". That throws  
> up the odd anomaly as well: New Ash Green [3] got its very own  
> bypass in the seventies, which is single carriageway but very wide.  
> The much smaller original "main road" which goes through the village  
> still retains the "C" classification, and the relatively enormous  
> bypass is still "unclassified".
>
> It occurred to the cynic in me that the lengths of roads of various  
> classes might be fed into some spreadsheet in Whitehall to calculate  
> some kind of grant to the local councils, giving them an interest in  
> keeping the administrative classifications as "high" as possible,  
> despite downgrading them on the ground. But that's unlikely to be  
> true of course.
>
> Colin Smale
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.40868&lon=0.2965&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF
> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway
> [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.3665&lon=0.30171&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF
> =========================
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I am one of an army of volunteers who collectively are producing and  
> maintaining "openstreetmap.org" ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/ ), a  
> crowd-sourced map of the world under the CC-BY-SA (Creative Commons by
>
> Share-Alike) licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/ 
> 2.0/ ), with which you may be familiar.
>
> Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request  
> your permission to use and republish certain information contained  
> in this document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap.
>
> One of the problems we frequently face is that the official category  
> of a road (or segment thereof) is not always immediately obvious "on  
> the ground". I would like to use this document to classify (minor)  
> roads correctly as (for example distinguishing between  
> "unclassified" and "tertiary"), add the official road number, and  
> possibly its status as a private (unadopted) street. The Highways  
> Gazetteer contains no location information (other than place names)  
> and therefore is probably unencumbered by Ordnance Survey  
> restrictions, which would render the data unusable in the CC-BY-SA  
> licence model. The alignment of the road will still be surveyed "on  
> the ground", but thereafter the Gazetteer will be used to classify  
> the road correctly as mentioned.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Colin Smale
>
> =========================
> Dear Mr Smale,
> Further to your request for information relating to re-use of  
> information from the Kent Highways Gazetteer, because the  
> information you have requested falls under the scope of the Freedom  
> of Information Act (FoIA) and is information held within the  
> Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate (the directorate), your  
> request has been forwarded to me so that I can co-ordinate the  
> response on behalf of the directorate. This is to comply with  
> procedures that the County Council has for dealing with all FoIA  
> requests.
>
> You ask the Council:
>
> Having found the KCC Highways Gazetteer, I would like to request  
> your permission to use and republish certain information contained  
> in this document by incorporating it in OpenStreetMap
> Although the response below has been sent from me, I have liaised  
> with Kent Highway Services who have provided the following in answer  
> to your request:
>
> Kent County Council are willing to allow the information in the  
> Highway Gazetteer to be used for the purpose of Open Street Map on  
> the proviso that we receive confirmation that the data source is  
> kent.gov.uk.
>
> =========================
>
> On 03/01/2010 12:36, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> While searching the internet for arbitration in a case where "local
>> wisdom" appeared to conflict with OSM data I came across the Kent  
>> County
>> Council Highways Gazetteer. It contains a "complete" list of roads in
>> Kent, including their reference, road number, name, official
>> classification, parish and length.
>>
>> It's a PDF file, linked from here:
>> http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/transport_policies/road_status/adopted_and_private_streets.aspx
>>
>> I would like to use this document to classify minor roads correctly  
>> as
>> "unclassified" or "tertiary", add the official road number, at  
>> least to
>> the "tertiary" roads, i.e. C-roads, and possibly "access=permissive"
>> where the road is a privately maintained road (assuming unhindered
>> access etc. as described on the Wiki).
>>
>> There is no sign of any OS-encumbrances; there is no real location
>> information in the file. The KCC (together with district councils I
>> assume) can be considered a fairly authoritative source for this
>> information.
>>
>> Would it be OK to derive tagging in this way? Should we get explicit
>> permission from KCC first? Anyone got any experience with this, or
>> example emails for this kind of request?
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100226/a9d27bc0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list