[Talk-GB] Council Footpath data

Adam Snape adam.c.snape at gmail.com
Thu May 31 18:07:05 UTC 2018


Hi Nick,

Yes Hampshire's data is unambiguously available for use under OGL3.

Kind regards

Adam

On Thu, 31 May 2018, 09:52 Nick Whitelegg, <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> (Adam - apologies for not quoting, but this email client performs the
> annoying habit of top-posting and haven't figured out a way to get it to do
> standard quotes).
>
>
> So, just to clarify, taking my local authority (Hampshire) as an example,
> does this page _definitely_ confirm that their RoW data is available under
> OGL?
>
>
>
> https://www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/informationandstats/opendata/opendatasearch/publicrightsofway
>
>
> Reason being that I'm now in a position where I may be able to do
> something with this data and I'd like to use Hampshire as it's my local
> county.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Adam Snape <adam.c.snape at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 30 May 2018 11:37:47
> *To:* Nick Whitelegg
> *Cc:* Robert Whittaker (OSM lists); talk-gb
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Council Footpath data
>
> Hi,
>
> Just a word of warning to double check the licensing terms before use.
> Many councils' licensing is ambiguous in that they'll refer to the OGL then
> state or link to the incompatible OS Open Data attribution terms.
>
> Whilst it's a wonderful resource and I think Barry has done a great job,
> the rowmaps site doesn't help with licensing clarity. There are quite a few
> references to unverifiable private email communications where the licence
> terms differ from the publicly available terms. Any mention of the OGL is
> taken at face value even if when checked the licence is actually the OS
> modified OGL ie. the incompatible OS Open Data licence! Perhaps most
> seriously, rowmaps also relies on a misinterpretation of communication with
> OS to suggest that OS Open Data licensed material is now automatically OGL3
> licenced material.
>
> All of this matters very little to most users of rowmaps but for OSM
> purposes as we require ODBL compatibility we need greater clarity.
>
> Over the coming months I'm hoping to individually clarify licensing with
> all of the authorities which haven't explicitly, unambiguously and publicly
> licensed their RoW data under OGL3 (and, yes, I know that's most of them).
> I'll also try and get new or updated data where not currently available or
> several years old. Ideally I'll get the authorities to include a clear
> unambiguous licence on their websites but, failing that, I'll publish the
> relevant communication online so that it is verifiable and we do at least
> have certainty about the data currently available to us.
>
> In the slightly longer term I think our aim needs to be to persuade all
> authorities to proactively publish new versions of their data as open data,
> rather than individuals having to individually badger authorities to update
> their data. Under their Publication Schemes they should start doing this
> automatically once information is supplied the first time, but it seems
> that only a minority of authorities who have released data currently
> publish it proactively.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 27 May 2018 at 11:21, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for that - looks like a few councils are OGL which means we should
> theoretically be able to add designation tags from the council data.
>
>
> Agree about not copying the data verbatim from council data - am more
> interested in giving people a way to easily identify council paths unmapped
> on OSM.
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180531/f0f6390b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list