@Jo- I’m not sure. I use OSM data as backgrounds for all sorts of online maps and such like, because I don’t have the corresponding 1:50K, 1:250K etc mapping from the OS, so for me the competing products are the smaller scale ones. I think people that need Mastermap data will stick with it because they know it is updated regularly etc. We’ll see…

I share your concern that the opening up of generalised products may cause National Mapping Agencies to seek price rises on large-scale more accurate data. NMAs are all suffering the effects of the public sector debt crisis – income is receding as sales to other government departments fall as well, and the sustainability model for quality data isn’t really being addressed yet…

Now that we have a choice (eg UK Map, and OSM for smaller scale raster mapping) the thing that prevents us taking the ‘new’ road is the derived data issue. We need to keep using our derived data because it’s the product of years of work and a lot of money. But if we still have to keep on paying for full Mastermap licensing just so we can retain the use of our derived data, we’ll never be able to break free and begin using other mapping products, let alone ‘freeing our data’.

Many local authorities have forward thinking staff who would like to publish data (particularly) mapping data but because of the draconian licensing regime pushed out of Southampton we’re not able to.

A good example of freeing data up is what we’re doing with street naming and numbering data. Because we ensured that we had derived data rights on our new air survey, all new street naming and numbering properties get posted up to OpenStreetmap even before they’ve been built. This includes the address details (obviously not the postcode at the moment!) and the building footptint.

The key point that Tim Berners-Lee made at No.10 is that the derived data problem is going to gotten rid of. It’s been driving government departments mad.

Lack of OS input into the announcement? Mm, yes. Imagine their delight at hearing that the government is acceding to the case made by people who think it should not charge for data licences. OS wasn’t represented at the No.10 meeting, though its regulator – National Archives (which owns OPSI) – was. National Archives didn’t seem upset; quite the reverse.

OS will still do Mastermap (and still be selling it for money – the same money, I think) so its commitment to rural areas will have to remain the same. Basically, the Treasury is underwriting the cost of doing this free data move. I’ve heard estimates but want to get them firmer before publishing them.

Peter makes good points (I wish I’d discovered his blog much earlier). The answer to all your questions and wishes: pitch in when the consultation starts. Make your desires clear. Make your fears clear. State how you’d like your desires met and fears calmed.

OSM could benefit hugely though if it is allowed to take in the OS dataset for 1:10,000 upward without copyright provision. That I’d like to see.