[Talk-GB] Historic England datasets

[Nathan Case]

Previous discussions were held in July/August 2021: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-July/027333.html (where I've seen the issue of licencing was also discussed) and https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-August/027461.html

It looks like Rob Whitaker came up with the ref:GB:nhle=* tag and presented a sound argument for it (over he_ref or ref:he=):
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-July/027359.html

Obviously, HE_ref=* is more widely used but I am happy to go with ref:GB:nhle=* instead. I do think the Wiki needs re-working if that is the consensus and perhaps an automated edit for the HE_refs? Something for a proposal, or just a discussion here?



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk> 
Sent: 05 July 2022 11:40
To: Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Historic England datasets

The inconsistency between HE_ref (on the UK-specific wiki page for
listed_status) and ref:GB:nhle on the heritage page definitely needs discussion. If any form of consensus is ever reached, I'll happily change anything I've tagged in the past to match that.

I'm not sure that what iD does in tag autocompletion is necessarily a recommendation :)

On 05/07/2022 10:43, SK53 wrote:
> Not sure that having another tag ref:GB:nhle (500 entries) in addition 
> to the much better established HE_ref (9000 entries) makes life easier 
> for anyone. Usage of both is quite patchy, with the former mainly 
> around London, the latter more widespread.
> 
> I'm all for the ref:GB:* for newly introduced things, not least 
> because it is a more consistent format, but there will be a lot of 
> data consumers who use the long established tags (Including iD for tag 
> autocompletion)..
> 
> I'd say it would be worth having a more general discussion about this, 
> and identify which existing tags may benefit from migration to the 
> newer key format. For example, I think Russ & others have been using 
> this for some Western Power infrastructure such as substations instead 
> of plain ref (probably because many WPD substations have 2 refs). I 
> was certainly caught out by ref:cadw rather than cadw_ref earlier in 
> the year.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 15:12, Robert Skedgell <rob at hubris.org.uk 
> <mailto:rob at hubris.org.uk>> wrote:
> 
>     I've used the data from Historic England, mostly in Newham, to add tags
>     to features already in OSM. For ones which hadn't been mapped, I've
>     either surveyed them before adding or added a note.
> 
>     I imported the data into PostGIS, with a view translating fields to OSM
>     keys and adding the local authority district for filtering and
>     extraction as JOSM-friendly GeoJSON files.
> 
>     The mapping I have used is:
>     ref:GB:nhle             listentry
>     heritage:operator       'Historic England'
>     historic                'building' (default, some features have more
>     appropriate values)
>     heritage                2
>     listed_status           'Grade ' + grade
>     he:inscription_date     listdate
>     heritage:website        hyperlink
> 
>     NB The table at the end of the wiki page for heritage probably needs to
>     be updated to bring it into line with the more recently edited tagging
>     suggestions for the UK.
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage
>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage>
> 
>     If you'd like me to email you the data for a particular area as
>     .geojson
>     or .osm, I'd be happy to help.
> 
>     On 04/07/2022 11:17, Nathan Case wrote:
>      >  >What are you adding exactly?
>      >
>      >  >some id linking this dataset with OSM?
>      >
>      > I've been adding tags such as "listed_status", "heritage",
>      > "heritage:operator" and "HE_ref" to buildings which are already
>     mapped
>      > or that I map using aerial imagery. The values for these tags
>     have come
>      > from the Historic England heritage website. I'm not copying over the
>      > listing's detailed descriptions or anything like that.
>      >
>      > Those fields are all given in the OGL licenced datasets and it
>     seems OSM
>      > acknowledges the dataset here:
>      >
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#National_Heritage_List_for_England_(Historic_England)
>     
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#National_Heritage_Li
> st_for_England_(Historic_England)>
> 
>      > so I think that's OK.
>      >
>      > I was just wondering if there was a layer to help us improve mapping
>      > (rather than me having to keep the HE website open). I mainly use
>     iD but
>      > maybe I'll look into the JOSM idea Berrely suggests.
>      >
>      > Thanks.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On 04/07/2022 10:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
>      >> "adding the Historic England reference to a few listed buildings
>     recently"
>      >>
>      >> What are you adding exactly?
>      >>
>      >> some id linking this dataset with OSM? If yes, then as far as I
>     know,
>      >> it is far more
>      >> likely to be fine even if dataset is not license compatible
>      >> (it would be different if things would be copied from it).
>      >>
>      >> For example it is fine (as far as I know) to link wikipedia article
>      >> with wikipedia tag, even if such article has things not
>     importable to OSM
>      >> like maps on incompatible licences.
>      >>
>      >> warning: not a lawyer
>      >>
>      >> (let me know if above is not true)
>      >>
>      >> 4 lip 2022, 10:21 od nathancase at outlook.com
>     <mailto:nathancase at outlook.com>:
>      >>
>      >>     I've been adding the Historic England reference to a few listed
>      >>     buildings recently and then got worried that it might not be OSM
>      >>     compatible licence wise.
>      >>

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb