That is possibly correct, according to my understanding following lengthy discussions with OS Customer Services back in May 2007. We wanted to publish cycle routes “traced” from OS mapping using software like TrackLogs (also MemoryMap, Anquet, Quo, etc.) on Google maps on the CTC Maps website. We were told then that to do so we needed a “Paper Map Copying Licence”, which the CTC has. They also said that tracing from Google’s TeleAtlas mapping did not create a derived work, and so did not need any licence from OS to publish.

But that was then, and we’re not sure if OS think the same way now. They have said they’ll let me know once they’ve worked it out themselves.

Obviously the whole concept of needing something called a “Paper Map Copying Licence” in order to share routes you’ve created using route planning software, where everything is digital and no paper is involved, is a little odd. Perhaps we need a “Digital Derived Data Licence”, which could be free like the OPSI’s Click-Use Licence but would allow the OS to keep an eye on things.

We should, as you say, be more encouraged by the fact that the debate is now reaching a real political issue of substance. The local government community, including the police, has long fought to negotiate better terms for using their own information in conjunction with geographic information. OS refuse to amend the terms of the MSA contract (a single contract worth almost a fifth of OS’s overall turnover). OS have the advantage that historically LAs collected data under previous variations of the agreement between OS and LG. This locks local authorities into OS’s policies on derived data – they can’t easily change suppliers because they’d have to recollect/re-invent all of their geographic information.

When they have voiced these concerns, local government has cited examples of how their services are constrained, but none of these issues registered at the same level as challenging promises from a Home Secretary, so they were stifled by OS’s relationship with CLG. (It’s ironic that CLG “looks after” the interests of both local government and OS.)

Now that national initiatives are at stake, perhaps Ministers will look beyond the technical arguments to the reality that OS stifles innovative use of GI data that could improve public services. The cheer from local authorities will be deafening if decisive action is taken.

The People’s Map (www.peoplesmap.com) is a project which allows Local Authorities to do this. The People’s Map is a web-based mapping project which allows anybody to add mapping information which they ‘draw’ on top of Getmapping’s aerial photography. The map data thus collected is then rendered into a map at 14 different scales. In addition newly added data goes through a verification process to ensure that it is accurate and correct before it is added to the ‘verified’ map layer. The People’s Map is a commercial project and the map data has to be licensed for commercial use – however we are working with a leading group of Local Authorities to create high quality mapping of their areas which can be used freely and without restriction by the contributing Local Authorities.

The lead group of project partners for this project are Bath and North East Somerset (BANES) and Bath Spa University. If you are a Local Authority interested in knowing more then please feel free to contact Martin or the People’s Map team”

For many years following the introduction of an experimental grid almost 80 years ago, users of popular OS maps were encouraged through guidance printed on the maps to identify locations by grid references, with no specific limitations on use. (This is distinct from extracting data from a structured OS product like Master Map). Has this not put such NG spot regernces, say for the public conveniences featured in Charles Arthur’s article, in the public domain?

So put the loos on a Google map and see what happens.

This is hardly likely to encourage innovation and consequently the majority of OS revenue is from direct sales from OS and not through resellers. Although the restrictive terms may ensure that OS easily achieves its financial targets, they also stunt opportunity, usability, fair competition and enterprise for others. These problems have been apparent for many years with little or no movement from OS and a growing level of pressure from elsewhere as the Web develops. The UK may (or may not) have the finest mapping in the world. It is a shame that its citizens cannot benefit from it more easily

The Locus Association

“If it was part or wholesale reproduction of an OS map, purely for the purpose of making another map, then OK, that’s not on.”

So for example publishing BLPU polygons based on MasterMap – would that be OK or not? It would not be difficult to recreate a copy of MM from the BLPUs would it? I guess that this is the kind of dilemma that OS are wrestling with

@ Charles – I don’t think the OS are objecting to “derived data” being displayed over another map, I think the concern is that Google claim some kind of license or right to the derived data. I agree with you that the current situation is stifling some useful and creative applications, i wonder whether the other API’s (eg multimap or yahoo) have the same licensing concerns for OS?

@ jpkatlarge – It is not for the top management of OS to resign. They are endeavouring to run the organisation in accordance with the funding model and charter that they have been given by their shareholder. The world may have moved on as you say but government has not yet changed the way they expect OS to operate, don’t blame OS management for that.

I think of geographic coordinates as having the same value as hyperlinks – they provide an unambiguous, powerful and reliable means of linking information from multiple sources. The OS and Royal Mail’s restrictions on use of geographic data are helping to hold back the sort of connectivity that we all benefit from every day when surf the web.