[Talk-GB] Mini mapping party - Glasgow Sat 22 May
Fozy 81
fozy81 at hotmail.com
Wed May 12 22:23:52 BST 2010
Little note to say: Mini-Mapping Party - Glasgow - Saturday 22 May
10.30am at the Centre of Contemporary Arts (Electron Club), 350 Sauchiehall Street
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_Party/Glasgow
all welcome!
Tim
> From: talk-gb-request at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:00:09 +0100
>
> Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
> talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-gb-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-gb-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB))
> 2. Re: National Byway cycle route (Dave F.)
> 3. Re: National Byway cycle route (Sam Vekemans)
> 4. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists))
> 5. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists))
> 6. Re: Definitive Paths Map Source (James Davis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:43:09 +0100
> From: "Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)"
> <robert.whittaker+osm-talk-gb at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTilfdm75JmvDnmQLGJ9VOeVyv9QNnubYsQBNcQpE at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn <info at dynoyo.plus.com> wrote:
> > In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS
> > layer. ?But for each parish, they also publish a text description of
> > each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. ?Useful as not all
> > real-world physical signs have the number. ?So using that with the NPE
> > layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the
> > present ROWs.
> >
> > Anyone see any problems with this method?
>
> If the textural descriptions (known as the "Definitive Statement")
> have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than
> just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a
> derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging
> to OS.
>
> I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to
> comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert
> legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take.
>
> On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS
> consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived
> data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data.
>
> Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the
> definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which
> crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have
> been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may
> not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of
> the current public rights of way.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:06:19 +0100
> From: "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route
> To: Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net>
> Cc: OSM - Talk GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> Message-ID: <4BE9E2EB.2090608 at madasafish.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > "Serious Cyclists..."
> Oh, yes, your absolutely right. If you've got panniers attached you
> _must_ be so much more serious than anybody else.
>
> > (Cycling Active magazine keeps running features on it) but no-one else has ever even heard of it.
> That says more about the magazine & its minimal clique readership.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> I agree it needs a separate designation.
>
> Dave F.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 00:16:43 -0700
> From: Sam Vekemans <acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] National Byway cycle route
> To: "Dave F." <davefox at madasafish.com>
> Cc: OSM - Talk GB <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>, Richard Fairhurst
> <richard at systemed.net>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTilPiR3qqLItrNT7Xt3xtq8ftZjOH9-k7XarYmIQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Ok cool, so i can pretend that 'route=recreation' exists and that it
> renders at the same zoom level as NCN and that is purpose is to map
> signed recreation routes that are NOT road cycling designated.
> And specicially for nationally confusing trails, such as the 'Trans
> Canada Trail'.
>
> I'll work on some documentation on the wiki (if its not done already)
>
> .... Athough 'NSN' National Smooth Network' gets my vote :-)
>
> cheers,
> Sam
>
> On 5/11/10, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
> > Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> >> "Serious Cyclists..."
> > Oh, yes, your absolutely right. If you've got panniers attached you
> > _must_ be so much more serious than anybody else.
> >
> >> (Cycling Active magazine keeps running features on it) but no-one else has
> >> ever even heard of it.
> > That says more about the magazine & its minimal clique readership.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > I agree it needs a separate designation.
> >
> > Dave F.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: samvekemans
> OpenStreetMap IRC: http://irc.openstreetmap.org
> @Acrosscanadatrails
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:36:50 +0100
> From: "Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\)" <ajrlists at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
> To: "'Ian Spencer'" <ianmspencer at gmail.com>,
> <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAOKaD4mR3JBOrEpRon92nMgBANp/H2q5kHFIvKMsnZiQaZAAAAABxJAAABAAAACNLhTU9Ce4SJvSshIGVQqWAQAAAAA=@googlemail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Couple of comments on this in addition to the responses by others.
>
> 1. The definitive information is not always on a map. For instance, local
> footpath rights of way can be found in text form in many libraries. Its
> pretty easy to then correlate the description information with a walk of a
> particular path. Don't be surprised to find there are mismatches.
> 2. Although local authorities are responsible for maintaining public
> footpaths not all treat them in the same way. I know for a fact that the OS
> does not survey footpath changes outside of urban areas, so again the
> definitive information will be with the LA, and it might be in text form or
> it might be on an OS map (or both).
>
> My best advice is to pop into your local library first and see what they
> have. Their docs may be a bit out of date but is a good and easy place to
> start and you can always go back to the LA with any queries.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
> >bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Ian Spencer
> >Sent: 11 May 2010 10:55 AM
> >To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
> >
> >(Newbie alert!!) I suspect this has been discussed before, but it seems to
> >me that there is a big hole in open source mapping, and that is getting
> >hold of definitive maps in electronic form to be able to document them.
> >
> >I presume that the definitive map is a public document that should be
> >freely available. (???!!!)
> >
> >What I am interested in is the gaps between the footpaths people recognise
> >and those which are registered on the definitive lists as there is a
> >deadline in around 10 years for getting missing paths registered.
> >
> >I know local authorities are responsible for the definitive maps in their
> >areas. Is it practical to contact the LAs and get definitive maps in
> >electronic form, or is there a central source (knowing that OS have not
> >released this). If there is a problem, is there an opportunity to work with
> >the Ramblers Assoc to get definitive way mapping released?
> >
> >I've read the tagging "controversy" and it seems there is a lack of
> >finality on tagging - is there anyone trying to resolve this? In the end,
> >only the OS maps seem to have legal status, but they aren't releasing
> >footpaths :(
> >
> >Anyway, just off for some Coast to Coast cycling...
> >
> >Cheers!
> >
> >Spenny
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10
> >19:40:00
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 09:53:23 +0100
> From: "Andy Robinson \(blackadder-lists\)" <ajrlists at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
> To: "'Robert Whittaker \(OSM Talk GB\)'"
> <robert.whittaker+osm-talk-gb at gmail.com>, <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> Message-ID:
> <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAOKaD4mR3JBOrEpRon92nMgBANp/H2q5kHFIvKMsnZiQaZAAAAABxJAAABAAAABsoS9U47G+TLjE629AevAQAQAAAAA=@googlemail.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Robert Whittaker (OSM Talk GB)
> >Sent: 11 May 2010 11:43 PM
> >To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
> >
> >On 11 May 2010 21:30, martyn <info at dynoyo.plus.com> wrote:
> >> In Hertfordshire, East Herts publish maps that are drawn on top of an OS
> >> layer. ?But for each parish, they also publish a text description of
> >> each numbered right of way, last updated in 2006. ?Useful as not all
> >> real-world physical signs have the number. ?So using that with the NPE
> >> layer in Potlatch it should be possible to check and reconstruct the
> >> present ROWs.
> >>
> >> Anyone see any problems with this method?
> >
> >If the textural descriptions (known as the "Definitive Statement")
> >have been written in part by someone looking at the maps (rather than
> >just looking at the ground) then there is argument that they too are a
> >derivative work of the OS maps, and hence contain IP rights belonging
> >to OS.
>
> Having read quite a few of these I've yet to see any real evidence that the
> statement has been prepared from a map. Each time I've looked that them to
> me the read the other way around, that someone has translated the statement
> onto the map. The reason I say this is because sometimes the maps miss some
> of the subtle detail described in the statement. Bearing in mind that the
> statements form part of the legal paper chase between the LA and the
> landowner and lawyers always tend to work with words, I'm confident that
> statements don?t include OS data. I also consider statements fair game, and
> have added all the footpath referencing for my local area by reference to
> them, though for the route on the ground I only trust the GPS and the
> physical way marked or trodden route.
>
> >
> >I don't know exactly what copyright protects, so wouldn't like to
> >comment on whether or not the argument is valid. But without expert
> >legal advice, I don't think it's a risk OSM should take.
> >
> >On the bright side though, I thought part of the result of the OS
> >consultation was that they would look to clarify the rules on derived
> >data. In particular, this may help with respect to PRoW data.
> >
> >Another avenue in the mean time would be to get copies of the
> >definitive map and statement as they were 50 years ago (for which
> >crown copyright will have expired), and also a list of paths that have
> >been modified since (modification orders are hard to get, so there may
> >not be that many). We can then get definitive information on most of
> >the current public rights of way.
>
> My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with
> subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its
> easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the changes that
> have occurred periodically with time. Updates in my area seem to be about
> every 20 years or so.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> >
> >--
> >Robert Whittaker
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Talk-GB mailing list
> >Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2868 - Release Date: 05/11/10
> >19:40:00
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:05:37 +0100
> From: James Davis <jamesd at jml.net>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Definitive Paths Map Source
> To: "talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)" <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
> Message-ID: <4BEA6F61.8080807 at jml.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote:
>
> > My local library has the definitive statements in the one book, with
> > subsequent versions over the ages added into the binding. So as you say its
> > easy to compare what the statement says 50+ years ago and the changes that
> > have occurred periodically with time. Updates in my area seem to be about
> > every 20 years or so.
>
> This looks like it varies a lot by area. I recently went to view the
> definitive map for our area and it was a bit of a mishmash. Everything
> is currently on paper, with no electronic records at all and I'm not at
> all convinced that there's any clear separation between data that
> belongs to the OS and data that belongs to the local authority.
>
> I spotted no differences between the data on the definitive map and the
> latest OS mapping of the area, but there are still plenty of
> inconsistencies to be found:
>
> - I've found rights of way referred to in other council documents that
> aren't marked on either.
> - I've found accessible and open footpaths that clearly at some stage,
> by their construction, were being maintained by the local authority but
> aren't recorded.
> - I've found rights of way that terminate at a parish boundary, with the
> physical track on the ground continuing and being open to users, but
> with no records of where the right of way disappeared to.
>
> Having access to the prow data would be great but I'm no longer
> convinced by it's definitiveness :)
>
> James
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
> End of Talk-GB Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19
> ***************************************
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20100512/0d2e2838/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list