[Talk-GB] Use of OS OpenData in OSM

[Gregory Williams]

That looks much better now. It's certainly interesting to see that whole
counties, like Norfolk, appear to be sourced from OS OpenData. I know that
that isn't true, but I guess it's a just a side-effect of the last edit to
existing ways adding a source / source:name tag referencing OS, like adding
the name to an existing way. It may be interesting to differentiate between
source and source:name using different colours to get an idea of where it's
only the name that's been added.

 

From: talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Graham Jones
Sent: 21 July 2010 22:58
To: 80n
Cc: Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Use of OS OpenData in OSM

 

Hi,

 

I have tidied up my OS Opendata Map
(http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata).

 

The changes are:

*	Lines and dots are smaller so it looks less of a mess.
*	It excludes source tags containing '25k', 'os7' and 'photos', which
were giving quite a lot of false positives, especially in Scotland.  Let me
know if you see any others and I can exclude them.
*	I have left my original layer available as 'tiles1', but this is not
displayed by default - you can add it with the '+' control to see the
differences.
*	The about <http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata/about.html>  page
has been updated to describe how it works better (still crude, but more
complicated SQL!).

There are still some surprising things here - for example National Cycle
Route 1 is highlighted, even though I know that the bits I added are not
from OS Opendata (see the bit from Whitby to Sunderland here
<http://www.maps.webhop.net/osm_opendata/?zoom=10&lat=54.6778&lon=-1.37818&l
ayers=BFT> ).   It seems that someone has tagged the relation (Relation
Number 9579) with 'OS_OpenData_StreetView' - I don't know why they would
have done this? 

 

Regards

 

Graham.

 

On 20 July 2010 23:40, Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at googlemail.com> wrote:

Thank you all for your comments.
I'll not get into the licence change debate here - plenty of that on
osm-talk....

-  I agree that there are a few surprises highlighted here.   There are a
couple of cycle tracks highlighted that I survryed myself, so I will have to
check the underlying data.  When I get home I will improve the filtering to
exclude os 1:25k references.
- I will see what I can do with the rendering as Gregory suggests.
- The supermarkets reference is copy-and-paste-itis on my behalf - sorry!
- Emilie is probably right that strictly I should be interested in history,
but I cant do that easily from a planet extract, and I don't think it will
matter too much with opendata being so recent.   A curious legal point is
that if a way was originally derived from os-opendata, but subsequently
re-surveyed, is it still derived from opendata?

Graham

____________________
Graham Jones
(from my phone)

On Jul 20, 2010 4:41 PM, "80n" <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
<robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com <mailto:robert.whittaker%2Bosm at gmail.com> >
wrote: > >...

What's more, because Produced Works can be published under a restrictive
license we couldn't get the additional data back by tracing either.  ODbL +
CT makes getting data back into OSM much harder than it is now by a massive
degree.

BTW, how would a corporation agree to the Contributor Terms anyway?  The
sign-up page only caters for individuals.  Has, for example, CloudMade,
agreed to the contributor terms yet and how could we tell if they had?

80n

 

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




-- 
Dr. Graham Jones
Hartlepool, UK
email: grahamjones139 at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100722/0903a0bc/attachment-0001.html>