[Talk-GB] Private tracks through a farmyard

[Tom Crocker]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, 10:55 Mark Goodge, <mark at good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On 21/04/2022 19:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
> > On 21/04/2022 19:03, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >>
> >> If you mean this one:
> >>
> >>
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.ordnancesurvey.osmaps
> >>
> >> then it doesn't use OSM data.
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Yes it does, since a recent upgrade. Here is the attribution:
> >
> >   https://85a.uk/images/osmaps_osm_attribution.png
>
> Ah, OK. That's not visible on the app, for some reason. But it clearly
> isn't just OSM data - there's stuff in there that isn't on "pure"
> OSM-based maps - in particular, it's showing building and property
> outlines to much greater detail than we have mapped in most places, plus
> it's including points (nodes) that OSM doesn't have. So I'm not sure
> that deleting tracks from OSM is necessarily going to solve the
> landowner's problem - if OS has them from its own low-value data then
> they'll still be there.
>

You have to click the i to get the attribution (it's Mapbox-based) and a
link to OSM to 'improve this map'.
https://i.postimg.cc/pr4Q3ZyK/Screenshot-20220422-112418-OS-Maps.jpg

They seem to be overlaying OSM footways, bridleways, and some but not all
tracks, over their own map (maybe other things too). It leads to oddities
like doubled-up paths and less significant but more prominent (OSM) paths
versus their less prominent but more substantial ones:
https://postimg.cc/9rhmMrLr

>
> I do also feel a little irritated with OS here. Their free maps don't
> show rights of way information, presumably because they want to push
> people to paying for the Landranger and Explorer maps. But rights of way
> data is open source, it's published under the OGL and incorporated into
> OSM data - even though the default Carto stylesheet doesn't render them
> visibly, they're there in the data and available for users (in
> particular, routers). So there's no technical or legal reason why OS
> can't include them in the free layer, it's a deliberate commercial
> decision to exclude them. But that's going to lead to precisely the
> issues experienced by the landowner in this case. And for OS to suggest
> that the solution is to delete the tracks from OSM is not far off
> vandalism. I don't know if we have any contacts within OS, but I think
> it needs to be very forcibly expressed to OS that we strongly disapprove
> of that advice and consider it an abuse of process. A weakness in OS's
> maps can't be fixed by making ours worse.
>

Yeah, they really should not be advising this, it's totally inappropriate.

Tom

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220422/f046ac16/attachment.htm>