[Talk-GB] Listed buildings info licence [from: Historic England - tagging guidelines - can we agree on the English usage]

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks both.

I didn't realise that was your site, Mark. Just the grey data is plenty -
thank you. But the wikidata may have taken care of that anyway.

Any suggestions on how to deal with the multiple building parts? (best pic
is at the bottom here
<https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1059941>)

I could call the mid-19C bit and the 1970s bit one building altogether I
suppose, plus amenity=place of worship - the functional reality.

But looking at the site it feels like splitting hairs to call it one
building, rather than two with a bridge between - especially given one is
listed and one (most definitely, one hopes) is not.

Case for a relation, maybe? Or make it two buildings and have contiguous
polygon "=place of worship" traced around the perimeter?


On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 15:47, Jez Nicholson <jez.nicholson at gmail.com> wrote:

> I just linked it to its Wikidata record. Wikidata has all (not sure from
> when) the listed buildings, and could aid with additional linked data.
>
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 3:40 PM Mark Goodge <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 21/07/2021 14:55, Edward Bainton wrote:
>> > I like the full name and I like the GB namespace.
>> >
>> > May I fork the thread and ask about listed buildings generally?
>> >
>> > There's a useful website that claims its info on listed stuff comes
>> from
>> > the Open Government licence.
>> > https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/site/about
>> > <https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/site/about>
>> >
>> > I see the wiki says OGL needs reviewing case-by-case.
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence
>> > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Government_Licence>
>> >
>> > Any views on whether it's safe to include data from that site (or from
>> > the source Crown Copyright sites) in the map?
>>
>> The Historic England downloadable data is OGL:
>>
>>
>> https://historicengland.org.uk/terms/website-terms-conditions/data-downloads/
>>
>> There's the usual disclaimer that if any part of the data is sourced
>> from OS, then OS may also assert rights over it. But I think that's just
>> backside covering by HE; there doesn't seem to be anything in the data
>> that is likely to fall foul of OS rights.
>>
>> If you actually download the data itself, then the zip file comes with a
>> copy of the OGL and a PDF which essentially repeats the page cited above.
>>
>> > Eg, there are some tags I'd like to include on Ivor House in Taunton.
>> >
>> https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101059941-ivor-house-taunton-deane-taunton-manor-and-wilton-ward
>>
>> What information on there are you specifically interested in? If it
>> helps, the data in the grey box is all explicitly OGL - the entry
>> details are directly from the bulk downloads (as above), and the
>> location data is inferred from ONS and OS open data products as well as
>> the Historic Counties Trust. Mapcodes and Pluscodes use the standard
>> open source algorithms as per their respective creators.
>>
>> It has just occurred to me that the credits page doesn't mention these
>> additional sources (because, when I originally put the site together, I
>> wasn't using them). I do need to update that!
>>
>> At some point, when I have sufficient circular tuits, I also want to
>> cross-reference the Historic England GIS downloads with the ONS and OS
>> Open UPRN datasets, to see if I can identify the correct UPRN for each
>> entry.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210721/abbdbac6/attachment.htm>