[Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Endecott" <spam_from_osmgb at chezphil.org>
To: <talk-gb at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Finding Unmapped public rights of way


> Robert Whittaker wrote:
>> I assume that these digitised PRoW Maps from local councils are
>> released under the OS OpenData License. That being the case, please
>> note that Ordnance Survey have recently stated that their "OS OpenData
>> licence is not forward compatible with the ODC-By and ODbL" [1]. Hence
>> these datasets cannot currently be used as direct sources for
>> contributing to OSM.
>
> I absolutely agree that the paths from these maps cannot be imported
> into OSM with the current licensing.  This is clear.
>
> However, it would be great if we could use them just to add the
> "designation=public_footpath" tags to paths that have already been
> surveyed.
>
> Do people think it would be acceptable to, for example, view a paper
> definitive map at the local council office, and then update the
> designation tags manually?

Probably not. If its a paper map then its still likely to have copyright on 
it.

A far better approach (which some contributors are following[1]) would be to 
ask to see the definitive statement (not the definitive map) and then ask 
the local authority to release the definitive statement under the unmodifed 
OGL.  As far as I am aware the OS are still of the opinion that they have no 
IP in the Definitive satement [2].

David

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils#List_of_UK_Councils
[2] http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/2010/04/os-opendata-goes-live/  Post 
from "Paul" on 23 June 2010 @ 10:48am

>
> If that's allowed, surely it is possible to construct an argument that
> an automated equivalent process using the digital versions of the maps
> is allowed.
>
> Is it possible to claim that while the geometry of the path is derived
> from the OS, the fact of it being a public footpath is something added
> by the local authority; if OSM substitutes its own path geometry, the
> OS intellectual property is removed.  Ideally, the local authority
> would then disclaim any rights (or adopt the plain OGL) over the remaining
> data: after all, they are only using the OS licence because of the OS-
> derived elements.
>
> Hmmm, that's not too convincing.  Maybe someone else can come up with
> a better argument.
>
>
>
> Cheers,  Phil.