spam

spam

spam

Love it. What kind of things need to be done to make it work elsewhere?

Is this use and attribution compatible with our CC-by-SA licence? Either way, as you say, it should raise the profile.

Looks fantastic! Congratulations!

I would have thought the Definitive Map would be derived from an OS-copyrighted source, to, would it not? However, following the Hampshire link above, there also seem to be Definitive Statements. Would these be useful in resolving some of the unmarked RoWs? I wish such statements existed for local authority boundaries, rather than using only copyrighted maps for the purpose (it seems that in Scotland, they are defined as statements - "follows River X until the A1234, etc." - in the statutes, but not in England).

If one can be very sure of a right of way through a field which does not seem to have any kind of physical path. How should this be tagged? Footway? I cannot find the answer anywhere in the Wiki and I have searched (the text around footway seems to suggest there has to be something physical on the ground). I have tagged some of what I believe are rights of way across a golf course fairway (the signage by the golf club seemed to suggest this; certainly public access, though they may just be permissive ways) as footways with surface=grass, but I don't know whether this is right. I am also aware of an almost unused right of way across a field my parents used to own (a route to an old cemetry which has not been used for burials for decades), which I would not know how to tag.

A whole estate in one hour. Makes me feel inadequate :)

Thanks. I might give it a go.

I now understand your annoyance if people are actually uploading duplicate ways. I have never seen that happen.

By the way, I always upload my traces simply to show the source of the data. I see this as important for a number of reasons:

a) I believe people are far less likely to alter the ways based on a less reliable data source (dodgy GPS trace or out-of-date Yahoo) if they can see the original data source.
b) As further traces are uploaded for the same road, we exploit the "herd intelligence" and alter ways to go for the average (whether mean, median or mode), as it is unlikely any one track is absolutely accurate (obviously, we would ignore the extremes, and anything suspiciously zig-zagging). Thus we can increase the accuracy of the map.
c) If there is any future claim of copyright infringement, regardless of who is defending it, they will have reasonably sound evidence that the area was mapped on the ground, and that the ways are based on those traces.

I do hope if you don't do this, that you do add a source=survey or source=gps tag (not needed if you upload the traces). It really annoys me when I have no indication of the source of a way which contradicts my GPS traces. I tend to mail the person responsible to ask the source before editing*, and hope they reply, but not everyone would be so patient.

* My logic being that if the source was an out-of-copyright map then my GPS trace is probably more accurate, but if it was another GPS trace I am not usually willing to assume that my trace is any better.

If you are looking to Wikipedia, please be aware of the source of the specific item of data, and the copyright status of that source (and if it is not stated, assume it is a copyrighted source). In general, Wikipedia is not recommended, as a lot of the coordinates data comes from copyrighted sources (or come from Geonames which, in turn is usually taken from a copyrighted source such as Google Maps).

I symphathise with your point about people changing areas you've mapped just based on the Yahoo aerial photo. But with regard to GPS tracks, surely given the inaccuracy of consumer GPS devices, a second and third opinion can be very useful? I'm afraid I am guilty of uploading tracks where they already exist, and indeed sometimes uploading the tracks of my local streets more than once, as I can then go with the middle ground if the tracks vary slightly (no Yahoo in my area to cross-check with).

Beg your pardon. I see from your earlier diary entry that you have verified the source of the data as GNS.

Is this imported data from Geonames? If so, please delete it again. Geonames is a secondary source deriving much of its data from copyrighted sources. Therefore this should not be going into OSM. See:

osm.wiki/Geonames

Indeed, I have just bought one, through "careful bidding" on eBay, for £30 + P+P. Can't wait for it to arrive!

Apologies - the link I posted there is for another site. However, when I visited the site I was presented with one of those famous "Your computer contains viruses, click ok to scan" pop-ups - highly unlikely to be anything other than a malware installer.

Warning, the site mention contains malware:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/alexa.com?ref=safesearch&aff_id=0&premium=false&suite=true&client_ver=2.9.258&locale=en-GB

Thanks, that's helpful.

I hope that's not sarcastic. If people don't have time to map, but have trails, lets have them, I say.

Yes, the licensing question is a valid one. All work derived from OSM data must be under Creative Commons licence. Maybe this website needs to make that clear, given that its product is clearly aimed at commercial customers