[OSM-talk] Copyright and official documents on the web

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

This probably doesn't apply to Nicks question if he was out in the country,
but I take the view that if I find a path that has 2m wide paved surface and
it doesn't have a no cycling sign then I will generally give it a cycleway
tag on the basis that clearly in practice it can be used as one.

Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andy Allan
>Sent: 07 April 2008 11:22 AM
>To: Nick Whitelegg
>Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Copyright and official documents on the web
>
>I would view this as a citeable reference, as opposed to a copyright
>violation.
>
>Cheers,
>Andy
>
>On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Nick Whitelegg <nick at hogweed.org> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>  Have found evidence that a path I mapped yesterday has cycle rights:
>>
>>  http://www.planning-
>inspectorate.gov.uk/southdowns/documents/MicrosoftWord1147-13-1.pdf
>>
>>  (see section 6.7.1)
>>
>>  Presumably I could tag this as highway=cycleway without there being a
>>  copyright issue? I would hope so, as this is not copied from a map - I
>have
>>  merely researched an official document to get the rights on the path.
>>
>>  It's not tagged as cycleway yet, just as footway, but if people think
>it's OK
>>  I'll change to cycleway.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>  Nick
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  talk mailing list
>>  talk at openstreetmap.org
>>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk