FREEMAP: free mapping for walkers/cyclists + a couple of questions - Page 2

<Nick> wrote:
> While we're at it I'd like to extend an open invitation to
> those of you with a GPS who are interested in the project
> to get surveying your area next time you're out.

What's the cheapest bit of kit that will do it?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ 01 811 8055

"Nick" <nick@hogweed.org> wrote in message
news:a859c046.0403071314.5c8cc7a8@posting.google.com...
> "Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall99spam@ntlworld.com> wrote
> in message
news:<SLD2c.852$7g5.349@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > Nick, nice to see you developing beyond Mapmaker - I can
> > remember when you
rolled
> > that out and the idea was a clever one, at the right
> > sort of level.
> >
> > To answer your questions - I don't think OS "own" the
> > Grid Ref concept, it's widely used across the world, and
> > I would have thought any
copyright
> > that may have existed in the past would have been on
> > patent, rather
than
> > any other sort of commercial ownership. No doubt others
> > on this NG will correct me if I 'm wrong.
> >
> > I think the main issues you'll have with this:
> > 1. The OS spent a lot of money on initial population of
> > the geographic
data
> > base -have you thought how you plan to handle this?
>
> Seems I can't derive data - even grid refs of path
> junctions etc - from OS maps (seen Tim Jackson's message).
> However if I (and others interested in the project) do GPS
> surveys it may be the database gets built up relatively
> quickly.
>
> > 2. There's already alternatives to this approach
> > (Mulitmap/Autoroute
etc)
> > that have a similar idea, but not necessarily the same
> > level of walker specific detail.
>
> Those approaches are proprietary with licencing
> restrictions on use (no reproduction etc). Also as you
> said, less walker/cyclist specific detail. Freemap-derived
> maps and info would be free to use without restrictions,
> in the spirit of the GPL for those into "free software"
> development. The whole Mapmaker/Freemap concepts have
> their roots around 3 or 4 years ago when I discovered that
> the OS didn't allow even small sections of scanned-in maps
> to illustrate walks. Also Freemap is aimed to be designed
> from the ground up for the walker/cyclist (B+Bs, walks
> database, focus on scenery etc)

Cyclists have been using GPS surveys to illustrate routes
for years - one I did 4 or 5 years ago is here
http://www.singletrackworld.com/maps/ChilternsMap.pdf

However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
recreation of the wheel a bit superflous given that Anquet
and Tracklogs (just add a www and a .co.uk to both) sell
cheap OS area data - full integration with GPS for upload
and download of routes and in the case of anquet free route
sharing as well as full 3D mapping which is more than
impressive if you've a graphics card that can handle it. You
can fly your proposed walk/ride in 3D
!!

Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as your Data -
you get a map every bit as accurate as the OS map.

I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed

Russ

In news:nvavh1-dhv.ln1@mercury.vispa.net.uk,
Russ <russellspamjunknothanks@tiscali.co.uk> typed:
> "Nick" <nick@hogweed.org> wrote in message
> news:a859c046.0403071314.5c8cc7a8@posting.google.com...
>> "Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall99spam@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>> message
> news:<SLD2c.852$7g5.349@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>...
>>> Nick, nice to see you developing beyond Mapmaker - I can
>>> remember when you rolled that out and the idea was a
>>> clever one, at the right sort of level.
>>>
>>> To answer your questions - I don't think OS "own" the
>>> Grid Ref concept, it's widely used across the world, and
>>> I would have thought any copyright that may have existed
>>> in the past would have been on patent, rather than any
>>> other sort of commercial ownership. No doubt others on
>>> this NG will correct me if I 'm wrong.
>>>
>>> I think the main issues you'll have with this:
>>> 1. The OS spent a lot of money on initial population of
>>> the geographic data base -have you thought how you
>>> plan to handle this?
>>
>> Seems I can't derive data - even grid refs of path
>> junctions etc - from OS maps (seen Tim Jackson's
>> message). However if I (and others interested in the
>> project) do GPS surveys it may be the database gets built
>> up relatively quickly.
>>
>>> 2. There's already alternatives to this approach
>>> (Mulitmap/Autoroute etc) that have a similar idea,
>>> but not necessarily the same level of walker specific
>>> detail.
>>
>> Those approaches are proprietary with licencing
>> restrictions on use (no reproduction etc). Also as you
>> said, less walker/cyclist specific detail. Freemap-
>> derived maps and info would be free to use without
>> restrictions, in the spirit of the GPL for those into
>> "free software" development. The whole Mapmaker/Freemap
>> concepts have their roots around 3 or 4 years ago when
>> I discovered that the OS didn't allow even small
>> sections of scanned-in maps to illustrate walks. Also
>> Freemap is aimed to be designed from the ground up for
>> the walker/cyclist (B+Bs, walks database, focus on
>> scenery etc)
>
> Cyclists have been using GPS surveys to illustrate routes
> for years - one I did 4 or 5 years ago is here
> http://www.singletrackworld.com/maps/ChilternsMap.pdf

That looks really nice.

> However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
> recreation of the wheel a bit superflous given that Anquet
> and Tracklogs (just add a www and a .co.uk to both) sell
> cheap OS area data - full integration with GPS for upload
> and download of routes and in the case of anquet free
> route sharing as well as full 3D mapping which is more
> than impressive if you've a graphics card that can handle
> it. You can fly your proposed walk/ride in 3D !!
>
> Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as your Data
> - you get a map every bit as accurate as the OS map.
>
> I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed

I think the idea is for royalty free use. I don't see
whether the Anquet software gives you rights to publish
those maps on the web, for example. I saw it did printing,
but I'm not sure what else. Do you know about what
Singletrack (a mountain bike magazine) does about the rights
to the OS maps it publishes?

A

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:04:54 -0000, Russ wrote:

>However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
>recreation of the wheel a bit superflous given that Anquet
>and Tracklogs (just add a www and a .co.uk to both) sell
>cheap OS area data - full integration with GPS for upload
>and download of routes and in the case of anquet free route
>sharing as well as full 3D mapping which is more than
>impressive if you've a graphics card that can handle it.
>You can fly your proposed walk/ride in 3D
>!!
>
>Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as your Data -
>you get a map every bit as accurate as the OS map.
>
>I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed.

No it isn't.

Freemap = free map.

OS map (from any source Anquet, MM, whoever, or even just a
sketchmap based on OS) = pay your money or else!
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the
"Westminster Gasworks"

"Russ" <russellspamjunknothanks@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<nvavh1-dhv.ln1@mercury.vispa.net.uk>... etary
with licencing restrictions on use
>
> Cyclists have been using GPS surveys to illustrate routes
> for years - one I did 4 or 5 years ago is here
> http://www.singletrackworld.com/maps/ChilternsMap.pdf
>
> However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
> recreation of the wheel a bit superflous given that Anquet
> and Tracklogs (just add a www and a .co.uk to both) sell
> cheap OS area data - full integration with GPS for upload
> and download of routes and in the case of anquet free
> route sharing as well as full 3D mapping which is more
> than impressive if you've a graphics card that can handle
> it. You can fly your proposed walk/ride in 3D
> !!

I think you may have missed the point somewhat, the idea is
to have a web-based mapping system for UK rights of way and
landscape features, available completely for free so that if
someone wants to look up *and reproduce, in any form* a map
of a given area, they can do. It also aims to be a full
package, with bed and breakfasts etc.

> Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as your Data
> - you get a map every bit as accurate as the OS map.

Would ideally like to do that. Probably would need to set up
my own server though (as opposed to rely on someone else's)
to handle the vast quantities of data that would entail....

> I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed

I suspect not :-) There is nothing out there doing exactly
the same thing, and without cost or licencing restrictions.
Besides which, it'll be a really enjoyable thing to develop,
and that in itself makes it worthwhile....

Nick

You'll see that this isn't an entirely serious contribution
to this thread, but consider this.

I've just bought Fugawi UK (South), which has a feature that
allows you to draw a track on an OS map and then send it as
track points to a GPS. As I walk this track the original
track points are gobbled up and replaced by new ones
generated by the GPS.

So, the question is, at the end of this walk, who holds the
copyright to the new track? And how is this different in
copyright terms from a track derived directly by drawing it
on the Fugawi OS map?

Regards, Nick.

--
Nick Hopton and Anne Hopton Caversham, Reading, England
<hopton@dsl.pipex.com

> However the availability of cheap OS data ...

Cheap? OS?! To me that's a contradiction. Extortionate
monopolistic pricing more like.

Nick Hopton wrote on Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:53:28 +0000....
> You'll see that this isn't an entirely serious
> contribution to this thread, but consider this.
>
> I've just bought Fugawi UK (South), which has a feature
> that allows you to draw a track on an OS map and then send
> it as track points to a GPS. As I walk this track the
> original track points are gobbled up and replaced by new
> ones generated by the GPS.
>
> So, the question is, at the end of this walk, who holds
> the copyright to the new track? And how is this different
> in copyright terms from a track derived directly by
> drawing it on the Fugawi OS map?

In both cases, you own any copyright in the track. The track
wasn't on the map before you started, and it was you that
produced it, not the OS or Fugawi.

The only problem would be if you also wanted to reproduce
stuff derived from the map, *in addition* to your track.

--
Tim Jackson news@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid (Change
'.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct) Absurd patents:
visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk

"Ambrose Nankivell" <$FirstnameInitialofSurname$@onetel.net.uk> wrote in
message news:c2ivfn$1tj7n2$1@ID-93953.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In news:nvavh1-dhv.ln1@mercury.vispa.net.uk, Russ
> <russellspamjunknothanks@tiscali.co.uk> typed:
> > "Nick" <nick@hogweed.org> wrote in message
> > news:a859c046.0403071314.5c8cc7a8@posting.google.com...
> >> "Bryan Hall" <bryan.hall99spam@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> >> message
> > news:<SLD2c.852$7g5.349@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >>> Nick, nice to see you developing beyond Mapmaker - I
> >>> can remember when you rolled that out and the idea was
> >>> a clever one, at the right sort of level.
> >>>
> >>> To answer your questions - I don't think OS "own" the
> >>> Grid Ref concept, it's widely used across the world,
> >>> and I would have thought any copyright that may have
> >>> existed in the past would have been on patent, rather
> >>> than any other sort of commercial ownership. No doubt
> >>> others on this NG will correct me if I 'm wrong.
> >>>
> >>> I think the main issues you'll have with this:
> >>> 1. The OS spent a lot of money on initial population
> >>> of the geographic data base -have you thought how
> >>> you plan to handle this?
> >>
> >> Seems I can't derive data - even grid refs of path
> >> junctions etc - from OS maps (seen Tim Jackson's
> >> message). However if I (and others interested in the
> >> project) do GPS surveys it may be the database gets
> >> built up relatively quickly.
> >>
> >>> 2. There's already alternatives to this approach
> >>> (Mulitmap/Autoroute etc) that have a similar idea,
> >>> but not necessarily the same level of walker
> >>> specific detail.
> >>
> >> Those approaches are proprietary with licencing
> >> restrictions on use (no reproduction etc). Also as you
> >> said, less walker/cyclist specific detail. Freemap-
> >> derived maps and info would be free to use without
> >> restrictions, in the spirit of the GPL for those into
> >> "free software" development. The whole Mapmaker/Freemap
> >> concepts have their roots around 3 or 4 years ago when
> >> I discovered that the OS didn't allow even small
> >> sections of scanned-in maps to illustrate walks. Also
> >> Freemap is aimed to be designed from the ground up for
> >> the walker/cyclist (B+Bs, walks database, focus on
> >> scenery etc)
> >
> > Cyclists have been using GPS surveys to illustrate
> > routes for years - one I did 4 or 5 years ago is here
> > http://www.singletrackworld.com/maps/ChilternsMap.pdf
>
> That looks really nice.

Thanks - it was quite a bit of work getting it from the GPS
to the page - someone else did the adobe bit.

>
> > However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
> > recreation of the wheel a bit superflous given that
> > Anquet and Tracklogs (just add a www and a .co.uk to
> > both) sell cheap OS area data - full integration with
> > GPS for upload and download of routes and in the case of
> > anquet free route sharing as well as full 3D mapping
> > which is more than impressive if you've a graphics card
> > that can handle it. You can fly your proposed walk/ride
> > in 3D !!
> >
> > Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as
> > your Data - you get a map every bit as accurate as
> > the OS map.
> >
> > I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed
>
> I think the idea is for royalty free use. I don't see
> whether the Anquet software gives you rights to publish
> those maps on the web, for example. I saw it did printing,
> but I'm not sure what else.

You pay for the mapping initially but sharing routes is free
via the anquet website or via any other website you chose to
use. You're right you can't publish the maps on a website,
this can be got round by using scans of out of copyright
maps like this web site which is a lot easier than new line
maps http://www.roughrides.co.uk

> Do you know about what Singletrack (a mountain bike
> magazine) does about the rights to the OS
maps
> it publishes?

Yes (i do know) It pays for them - licences aren't as
prohivatively expensive as they used to be. (not sure on
actual cost though - I think it's on the oS website
somewhere)

Russ

"Phil Cook" <urwalk@p-t-cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g41q40tj38jkve86sqq6qe6tqi8ri5pieu@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 23:04:54 -0000, Russ wrote:
>
> >However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
> >recreation of the
wheel
> >a bit superflous given that Anquet and Tracklogs (just
> >add a www and a .co.uk to both) sell cheap OS area data -
> >full integration with GPS for upload and download of
> >routes and in the case of anquet free route
sharing
> >as well as full 3D mapping which is more than impressive
> >if you've a graphics card that can handle it. You can fly
> >your proposed walk/ride in
3D
> >!!
> >
> >Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as your Data
> >- you get a map every bit as accurate as the OS map.
> >
> >I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> Freemap = free map.
>
> OS map (from any source Anquet, MM, whoever, or even just
> a sketchmap based on OS) = pay your money or else!

Yes maybe but see my comment elsewhere about out of
copyright maps.

My point is that digital OS mapping is now cheap enough and
provides so much added value that it's just about
completely pointless trying to mess around producing line
maps by GPS surveys.

YMMV

Russ

"PJD" <pjd@trygonianospam.com> wrote in message
news:404e1317$0$22393$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> > However the availability of cheap OS data ...
>
> Cheap? OS?! To me that's a contradiction. Extortionate
> monopolistic
pricing
> more like.
>

Given the surveying time and expense that goes into it and
the fact that I can buy full digital 3D mapping at 1:50,000
scale including full height data, full GPS support, route
planning facilities and more besides covering half the
country (Thats UK not England) from Anquet for £120 quid or
the whole of england from tracklogs for £125 or a very large
local region (16 regions cover GB) for £40 (cheaper than
most chart playstation games) then I reckon cheap and OS
data do belong in the same sentence.

However if you're the sort of person who illegally copies
all their software and downloads all their music for free
then I could see how you'd feel it was extortionate
monopolistic pricing. It's now way way cheaper than paper
maps, what would you feel was fair or are you of the opinion
that everyone should pay more tax so you can get free
digital mapping?

Russ

"Nick" <nick@hogweed.org> wrote in message
news:a859c046.0403090352.7ed97ffb@posting.google.com...
> "Russ" <russellspamjunknothanks@tiscali.co.uk> wrote
> in message
news:<nvavh1-dhv.ln1@mercury.vispa.net.uk>...
> etary with licencing restrictions on use
> >
> > Cyclists have been using GPS surveys to illustrate
> > routes for years -
one I
> > did 4 or 5 years ago is here
> > http://www.singletrackworld.com/maps/ChilternsMap.pdf
> >
> > However the availability of cheap OS data makes the
> > recreation of the
wheel
> > a bit superflous given that Anquet and Tracklogs (just
> > add a www and a .co.uk to both) sell cheap OS area data
> > - full integration with GPS for upload and download of
> > routes and in the case of anquet free route
sharing
> > as well as full 3D mapping which is more than impressive
> > if you've a graphics card that can handle it. You can
> > fly your proposed walk/ride in
3D
> > !!
>
> I think you may have missed the point somewhat, the idea
> is to have a web-based mapping system for UK rights of way
> and landscape features, available completely for free so
> that if someone wants to look up *and reproduce, in any
> form* a map of a given area, they can do. It also aims to
> be a full package, with bed and breakfasts etc.

Would be a lot easier and quicker to scan in and then trace
over out of copyright maps like they've done at
http://www.roughrides.co.uk Why do we need a web based
mapping system showing UK rightsof way and landscape
features available free when we've got www.multimap.co.uk -
admitedly you can't use their maps on a web site but it does
cover the whole of the UK at full 1:50,000 scale.

> > Tip - when surveying with GPS use track logs as your
> > Data - you get a
map
> > every bit as accurate as the OS map.
>
> Would ideally like to do that. Probably would need to set
> up my own server though (as opposed to rely on someone
> else's) to handle the vast quantities of data that would
> entail....
>
> > I wish you well but I suspect your premise is flawed
>
> I suspect not :-) There is nothing out there doing exactly
> the same thing, and without cost or licencing
> restrictions. Besides which, it'll be a really enjoyable
> thing to develop, and that in itself makes it
> worthwhile....

Your line maps will never be good enough to navigate by -
people will still need an OS map or a tracklog downloaded to
their GPS so I still can't see what you're providing that
will make it worthwhile people contributing and using - by
all means enjoy yourself developing it but I still feel that
your premise (that there's a demand for this) is flawed but
I do wish you well and hope it takes off.

Russ

"Tim Jackson" <news@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ab8256b150d1b5f98a1b3@news.freeserve.net...
> Nick Hopton wrote on Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:53:28 +0000....
> > You'll see that this isn't an entirely serious
> > contribution to this thread, but consider this.
> >
> > I've just bought Fugawi UK (South), which has a feature
> > that allows you to draw a track on an OS map and then
> > send it as track points to a GPS. As I walk this track
> > the original track points are gobbled up and replaced by
> > new ones generated by the GPS.
> >
> > So, the question is, at the end of this walk, who holds
> > the copyright to the new track? And how is this
> > different in copyright terms from a track derived
> > directly by drawing it on the Fugawi OS map?
>
> In both cases, you own any copyright in the track. The
> track wasn't on the map before you started, and it was you
> that produced it, not the OS or Fugawi.
>
> The only problem would be if you also wanted to reproduce
> stuff derived from the map, *in addition* to your track.

AIUI you're wrong - the first track is derived directly from
the OS data on the map (by tracing over mapped RoW's) and
you may only use this for your own personal use - ie
navigating the route you've traced.

However when navigating the route you are also surveying it
and would discover any of the 'deliberate' mistakes OS
include in their data to spot such things (they won a court
case based on this some time ago) and you then own the data
and the copyright in it on your new surveyed track. In
practice it would be difficult for the os to spot from a
quick look but I have heard of them asking for copies of
GPS survey data in the past and traced routes don't have
time / speed / height data so are easy to spot if it gets
to this stage.

That was certainly the advice we got when doing the route I
linked to earlier.

Russ

> However if you're the sort of person who illegally copies
> all their software and downloads all their music for free
> then I could see how you'd feel it was extortionate
> monopolistic pricing.

And if you're the sort of person who makes malicious
inferences about someone you do not know, you're not worthy
of a debate. Please retract.

Russ wrote on Tue, 9 Mar 2004 23:53:11 -0000....
> AIUI you're wrong - the first track is derived directly
> from the OS data on the map (by tracing over mapped RoW's)
> and you may only use this for your own personal use - ie
> navigating the route you've traced.

OK, having thought some more about it, I think you're right
in that situation, but it would depend what exactly you're
doing. Let's take a few slightly different situations to
illustrate what I mean.

1. First let's take the situation you pose. Suppose you
choose a footpath shown on the on-screen map, which the
OS had surveyed. You deliberately click points along
that footpath at intervals corresponding to every 25
metres on the ground, aiming to capture the route it
takes. Then you join up the dots and publish the result.

Now you've got a drawing the form of which is derived
from what you see on the map. There might perhaps be a
legal issue as to whether the footpath you've copied
amounts to what copyright law calls a "substantial part"
of the original map. But I agree it's likely that it
would, and that you are therefore infringing the OS
copyright.

2. Next, suppose you do the same as in 1. But as well as
your joined-up dots, the document you publish also takes
other features from the underlying map, to show the
context of the route. I think the more features you
include, the clearer it is that you are taking a
"substantial part" of the map, removing any slight
doubts there might have been about infringement. (If you
add embellishments of your own as well, then you will
also have a separate, new copyright of your own, but
that doesn't change the position as regards the OS
copyright.)

3. Now take a different (but admittedly artifical)
situation. Suppose you choose an area of open country on
the map, and just click a series of points *at random*.
Then you publish a page which shows just the points in
the positions you clicked, perhaps with lines joining
them, but with no data derived from the map itself. Then
what you've got is an abstract drawing which you
yourself drew in its entirety. You would own the
copyright in that, and since it doesn't correspond to
anything in the underlying map it wouldn't infringe OS
copyright.

4. Taking point 3 a bit further, suppose you click a number
of points in the area of open country, but this time not
at random. You are making up a route of your own across
the area. It doesn't correspond to any path shown on the
map. You join up the dots and publish the resulting
track. Does that infringe OS copyright? I don't believe
it does, for the same reason as in point 3. It doesn't
correspond to anything you see on the map. And you
yourself will own the new copyright which will probably
exist in the track. This is the situation I really
really had in mind in my previous post.

5. Next suppose that instead of clicking on a footpath or
open country, you click on the positions of a
significant number of features shown on the map, such as
hilltops, buildings, villages, etc. You label each point
appropriately and publish the result. I think that would
infringe the OS copyright: you've made a simplified copy
of the map.

6. Now take the situation in 5, but you only click on two
points, corresponding to a car park and a hilltop, say.
Does the resulting drawing infringe OS copyright? I
don't think it does. All you've got is two unrelated
points on a page. Since there's no surrounding
contextual information, they could be anything. There's
nothing of substance derived from the map. And I think
the position would be the same even if you added labels
to the points, giving the names of the hilltop and the
car park. Two points with no surrounding context to
relate them to each other don't make a "substantial
part" of a map, in my view.

7. Finally, what if we combine the non-infringing
situations of points 4 and 6 above? You produce a track,
made up by you yourself and not copied from any path on
the map. The start and end points are the car park and
the hilltop, and perhaps you label them accordingly.
Does that infringe OS copyright? No, I don't think so,
since you've still not done anything that amounts to
reproducing a substantial part of the original map. Who
owns the copyright in this new track? You
do.

It seems to me that the track produced in point 7 only
becomes an infringment of OS copyright if you start
adding other features taken from the map. Maybe that
would be necessary to make the result useful in
practice, but it wasn't part of the hypothetical
situation posed in Nick Hopton's previous post.

--
Tim Jackson news@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid (Change
'.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct) Absurd patents:
visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk