[OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Mike Harris
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Fri Sep 25 18:46:29 BST 2009
Jon makes a good point about the Definitive Statement - at least in
principle - indeed it is the process I described in an earlier message to
this thread describing how the Definitive Maps were originally created.
There is a big 'but' though - from my own experience the Definitive
Statements are almost or completely empty for hundreds of paths - sometimes
not a single path in a parish has a meaningful Definitive Statement! This is
an illegal state of affairs but that is simply the case and cannot now be
changed (other than by a Definitive Map Modification Order - of which, with
current resources, you are unlikely to see more than a few dozen (at most)
per year per county.
Mike Harris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stockill [mailto:lists at stockill.net]
> Sent: 25 September 2009 15:54
> To: OSM Talk
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
>
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote:
> >
> >> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an
> OS underlay,
> >> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council
> gathered info.
> >> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to
> >> produce the definitive maps.
> >
> > Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was
> > gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it
> is a very
> > unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that
> > scrupulously careful...
> >
> > The reason of course is that they have a license to do what
> they like
> > with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether
> they derive
> > things from it (well at least until they try and overlay
> that data on
> > a google map and get nastygrams from the OS).
>
> The simplest solution would be to work from the definitive
> statement, rather than the definitive map, except where the
> statement includes OS grid references.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
More information about the talk
mailing list