Talk:Provisional/First Edition

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I have a couple of these which I think meet the out of copyright proviso. The one in front of me is SK64, latest date on the sheet is a reprinted with corrections, 1958. The map is folded differently than other Prov/1st ed maps in my possession having sheet numbers both at top and bottom of map on RHS. Back was obviously printed later: not least because the OS have moved from Chessington (on the map) to Southampton. If this is suitable I have an A4 scanner and could produce 5km by 5km georeferenced tiles on the sheet lines of the 1:10000 series. Let me know if this is of any use. SK53 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The key important dates are the published date, any copyright date and the reprinted date shown. The print edition helps with the latter. Many of the maps that were published in the 1950's continued to be printed without any changes other than the cover or reverse side until the 1980's, so its the published date that counts. All scans welcome. Ideally as a single sheet at 300dpi tif format.blackadder 10:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Index

Any chance of the index of the maps you currently own? A list of the sheet numbers would be good enough for now. There's a chance I could acquire some OOC maps but I won't go the bother if you already have the particular sheets --Milliams 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got sheet SU 62 (West Meon) with a publication date of 1959 and a crown copyright date of 1959 also. It's based on the 1908 sheets but revised in 1957-1958. It's a folded paper copy in medium quality. If you wish, I can scan it in at high resolution and send you the copy (or can this not be legally done until the end of 2009?) --Milliams 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Index is up now (bottom of page). Sheet SU62, print edition C, will be out of copyright on 01/01/2010 so suggest you hold until then and I'll put it down in the index that you have it. Cheers. blackadder 10:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The First / Provisional tile coverage on ooc.openstreetmap.org around grid reference ST254248 appears to show the M5! That didn't exist until the 1970s, so can't possibly be out of copyright yet. --Ritchie333 23:12, 4 August 2010 (BST)

The map in question (ST22) has a copyright date of 1959. A small proportion of the provisional edition published by the OS have a printed copyright date which is earlier than some limited amount of data on the map. Presumably in updating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)
The motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)
{"cc_re__cc_re__cc_by_sa_2_0": ["\t\t\t<li id=\"footer-places-disclaimer\"><a href=\"/wiki/OpenStreetMap:General_disclaimer\" class=\"mw-redirect\" title=\"OpenStreetMap:General disclaimer\">Disclaimers</a></li>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li id=\"footer-places-mobileview\"><a href=\"//wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional/First_Edition&amp;mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile\" class=\"noprint stopMobileRedirectToggle\">Mobile view</a></li>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</ul>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<ul id=\"footer-icons\" class=\"noprint\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li id=\"footer-copyrightico\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/\"><img src=\"/cc-wiki.png\" alt=\"Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license\" width=\"88\" height=\"31\"/></a>\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li id=\"footer-poweredbyico\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<a href=\"//www.mediawiki.org/\"><img src=\"/w/resources/assets/poweredby_mediawiki_88x31.png\" alt=\"Powered by MediaWiki\" srcset=\"/w/resources/assets/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /w/resources/assets/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x\" width=\"88\" height=\"31\"/></a>\t\t\t\t\t</li>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t</ul>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div style=\"clear: both;\"></div>\n\t"], "copyright__copyright__copyright": ["dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)", "dating some maps the OS did not consider the change to be significant enough to revise the copyright date. Note that the vast majority of the series do not display a copyright date at all, in which case the last change date given on the map is currently used. blackadder 18:10, 9 August 2010 (BST)\nThe motorway in question opened in 1974 [1]. I find it somewhat perplexing that a map would show features that date 15 _years_ after the supposed copyright date. --Ritchie333 09:56, 10 August 2010 (BST)"]}