[Talk-GB] County Footpaths Data (was: Re: OS OpenData now OGL)
nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Wed Feb 18 11:30:18 UTC 2015
A related point - which comes up for me when surveying quite a bit.
I know this has come up many times before but the results have always been inconclusive; would anyone "official" be able to give guidance here? (i.e. I'm not looking for a debate, but a "yes" or "no" from the appropriate working group)
Quite often I use the County Council footpaths data to find new footpaths to do ground surveys for in OSM.
Most of the time the footpaths are well marked and all is ok.
However occasionally the footpath might only be waymarked at one end, and feature junctions meaning one cannot 100% ascertain its ROW status from ground surveys without recourse to the county council data.
Is it OK to add a designation tag in these cases - or even cases where the footpath is not waymarked *at all*?
In these cases, ground surveys have revealed a physical path on the ground (so there's definitely a path there) it's just that the actual ROW designation cannot be ascertained on the ground.
From: Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
Sent: 18 February 2015 00:04
To: Matthijs Melissen; Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL
On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen <info at matthijsmelissen.nl<mailto:info at matthijsmelissen.nl>> wrote:
I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on
sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which would make
OGL-3 incompatible with ODbL.Do we have confirmation that this is not
the case, i.e. that OGL-3 and ODbL are compatible?
All the OGL versions are online. A comparison of v2 and v3 shows nothing to worry me. Hopefully Robert W will chip in as he's clued up on all this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB