Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

Robert wrote:

> Just a quick note to say that I've updated the matching used in my
> tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ so that
> OSM
> objects with a ref:edubase, ref:seedcode, or ref:deniirn that
> matches
> an entry on the official list will now always be 'matched' in my tool.
> 
> (Previously the match would only be recorded if the OSM object was
> within 1km of the postcode centroid recorded in the official list.
> Also official list entries with a missing or invalid postcode could
> not be matched at all. Both of these problems are now fixed.)
> 
> This new looseness in the matching is needed to cope with some
> schools
> that have missing postcodes in the official lists, and multiple sites
> and/or use PO boxes for their official address. However, it may lead
> to some false positives, so there is a new report at
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html
> which
> lists possible problems with the matching that would benefit from
> manual checking.

I think this is an improvement (certainly it has boosted the CO matching by a 
couple of % - though that might also be partly down to the surveys and edits I 
made yesterday).

But the above and my edits yesterday make me wonder if we can settle on a way 
to map two schools that share grounds. I have been tagging the grounds as 
amenity=school, and the separate buildings for the two schools with the 
different ref:edubase etc tags on. These don't get matched - I end up with a 
proximity match for one of the two schools to the school grounds area, and a 
blue dot for the other.
Examples: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/393006341
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64096389

Similarly there are schools with two sites. For these I put the ref:edubase 
tags etc on the main site, being the one matched by address from the data. The 
second site I don't add anything to, but that leaves it as something which will 
possibly cause a false match based on proximity. Should I add just the 
ref:edubase tag to the second site as well?
example: school 114705 is being matched to a second site, though in this case 
that site is further away and without a ref:edubase than the actual school 
which is closer and does.
False match school: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35732246#map=16/51.8778/0.9127
Second site: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183160516
Primary site: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305233410

Can we agree best practice for these two cases, so Robert is able to detect 
them and I can remap where necessary?

I also have one situation where I have added the school as a node within 
another building, as a school seems to be something they offer in the building 
with the primary purpose being health related (perhaps hospital isn't the exact 
correct tag - maybe one of the social_facility ones).
http://osm.org/go/0EHZHHjsK?m=
I'm fairly sure though we don't want to start matching to nodes, so am happy to 
leave this showing as unmatched.

Incidentally the Braiswick Primary School on the new possible problems list is 
a new build school (not sure the larger building is finished yet) and either 
the postcode is wrong in the DfE data or the centroid location you have for it 
is way out - I suspect it is using the CO4 centroid rather than anything more 
accurate.

Thanks again for the matching tool. That and OsmAnd made surveying both easier 
and interesting yesterday (as I was letting OsmAnd guide me down lanes I didn't 
know just moving from one point to the next - was interesting to see the GPS 
trace this morning to find out where I'd been). I still managed to miss two of 
the points I'd aimed to survey - those are likely to have to wait until next 
weekend now. I've also found out how to get OsmAnd speaking directions in 
background and have Mapillary taking photos in foreground. Those 2700+ photos I 
think are currently processing.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

Just a quick note to say that I've updated the matching used in my
tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ so that OSM
objects with a ref:edubase, ref:seedcode, or ref:deniirn that matches
an entry on the official list will now always be 'matched' in my tool.

(Previously the match would only be recorded if the OSM object was
within 1km of the postcode centroid recorded in the official list.
Also official list entries with a missing or invalid postcode could
not be matched at all. Both of these problems are now fixed.)

This new looseness in the matching is needed to cope with some schools
that have missing postcodes in the official lists, and multiple sites
and/or use PO boxes for their official address. However, it may lead
to some false positives, so there is a new report at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html which
lists possible problems with the matching that would benefit from
manual checking.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Dan S]

2016-01-24 11:42 GMT+00:00 Ed Loach :
> Stuart wrote:
>
>> 1 site, 2 schools:
>> • boundary has amenity=school
>> • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for
>> the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should 
>> probably
>> only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it 
>> gets
>> picked up on the match tool.
>> • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools”
>> or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false 
>> “look at” flag.
>
> I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in 
> those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though 
> whether I used building=school or building=yes).
>
>> 1 school, 2 sites.
>>
>> • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way 
>> to do it. I
>> tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual 
>> sites
>> with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, 
>> these
>> didn’t get matched.
>
> The site relation page however
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
> suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
> "For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school 
> grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be 
> used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here."

Hi - it's an interesting ambiguity between "multipolygon" and "site".
I actually think the thing you quote is a bit mis-worded, and what
they're trying to say (I'm inferring from the other sentences in the
wiki page...!) is that you should use "multipolygon" to aggregate
multiple buildings (for example) that sit within a single grounds,
whereas you should use "site" to aggregate multiple objects that are
more widely separated ("scattered throughout across the city" is the
wiki guidance).

This shows that OSM could perhaps live without the "site" relation if
people simply used multipolygons. However I think people tend to
assume multipolygons are quite localised, which probably makes a
difference to how they are rendered (e.g. one label for a whole
multipolygon, vs one label for each member of a site).

Anyone else got input on this? I might tweak the wiki, if it seems I'm
not in the wrong.

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Lester Caine]

On 24/01/16 13:09, Lester Caine wrote:
> That just leave 4 more objects to check :)

OK most of the 'red dot' items were out of area, but I've tidied them up
anyway as they are still Worcestershire.

Pershore College has been sort of solved by following the current
signage ;) It has 'Part of Warwickshire College' on the entrance signs,
so I've added that to the name.

The campuses of 'Heart of Worcestershire College' all seem to have new
signs with that on but nothing else, so I've added a '- xxx' with the
campus name taken from their website. On my todo list still is to add
the rest of the missing sites.

Think hat this just leaves the Abbey Park Schools problem and the New
College Worcester to be sorted. The information is in the database, just
the progress display showing a problem.

Next month I'll move on to 'DY' as a lot of that is still
'Worcestershire' :)

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

Stuart wrote:

> 1 site, 2 schools:
> • boundary has amenity=school
> • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for 
> the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should 
> probably 
> only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it 
> gets 
> picked up on the match tool.
> • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools” 
> or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false 
> “look at” flag.

I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in 
those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though 
whether I used building=school or building=yes).

> 1 school, 2 sites.
> 
> • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way 
> to do it. I 
> tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual 
> sites 
> with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, 
> these 
> didn’t get matched.

The site relation page however 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
"For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school 
grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be used. 
Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here."

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

> > The site relation page however
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Prop
> osal
> > suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
> > "For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of
> the school grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon
> relation can be used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate
> here."
> 
> Hi - it's an interesting ambiguity between "multipolygon" and "site".
> I actually think the thing you quote is a bit mis-worded, and what
> they're trying to say (I'm inferring from the other sentences in the
> wiki page...!) is that you should use "multipolygon" to aggregate
> multiple buildings (for example) that sit within a single grounds,
> whereas you should use "site" to aggregate multiple objects that are
> more widely separated ("scattered throughout across the city" is the
> wiki guidance).
> 
> This shows that OSM could perhaps live without the "site" relation if
> people simply used multipolygons. However I think people tend to
> assume multipolygons are quite localised, which probably makes a
> difference to how they are rendered (e.g. one label for a whole
> multipolygon, vs one label for each member of a site).
> 
> Anyone else got input on this? I might tweak the wiki, if it seems I'm
> not in the wrong.

I personally don't see the difference between our case here (a school with 
multiple sites/campuses) and the university example provided on the page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Examples
Although having said that the amenity=university wiki page suggests a 
multipolygon should be used (an unanswered question on the talk page there asks 
how to put the different campus names on the relevant member areas).

However, I think in the standard render that Site gets no labels and 
multipolygons gets one for each outer way (based on local woods with the name 
all over the place). Not that how things render should affect our choice.

The other bit of text on that wiki page though is "The features should have a 
close geographic relationship, usually within the same town." I'll cling to the 
word 'usually' if we decide to use site relations for multi-campus schools, as 
Colchester Institute has a Clacton campus, and Tendring Technology College has 
the main school in Frinton and the second campus in Thorpe-le-Soken. I've not 
yet worked out what to do about the mapped Adult Community Learning centres 
that don't have edubase refs and are scattered across Essex (there are three 
centres already mapped and tagged as amenity=college in the CO area - Harwich, 
Clacton and Colchester) - this relates 
https://www.essex.gov.uk/Adult-Learning/Pages/Default.aspx

So I'm currently unconvinced by the site relation, especially as the discussion 
on its talk page suggests the proposal is still evolving - it seems I commented 
on it nearly 5 years ago and since forgot.

Ed


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Lester Caine]

On 24/01/16 10:43, Ed Loach wrote:
> But the above and my edits yesterday make me wonder if we can settle on a way 
> to map two schools that share grounds. I have been tagging the grounds as 
> amenity=school, and the separate buildings for the two schools with the 
> different ref:edubase etc tags on. These don't get matched - I end up with a 
> proximity match for one of the two schools to the school grounds area, and a 
> blue dot for the other.
> Examples: 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/393006341
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64096389

I have the same problem with Abbey Park Schools
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.110348=-2.081149=16#map=18/52.10995/-2.08240
The central block is shared along with the grounds, and both school
buildings have their edubase ref, but the site does not so the check fails.

I'm three schools down on 100%, the other 'problem' New College
Worcester is the RNIB College, and has two edubase references for some
reason. I've tagged with the one which matches the website, and added a
node for the second, but need some way to make sure it's recognised? The
progress list quotes this as 'New College Worcester' but that is not
what appears on the edubase list ... New College Worcester (ISP) and New
College Worcester (NMSS) have different ids.

Not sure how Northwick Manor Primary School slipped through the net ;)

My other problems are South Worcestershire College, which is two
campuses one in Evesham, which edubase identifies, and the second in
Malvern ... which is not listed. However the bigger problem in my todo
list is Heart of Worcestershire College, which also has a campus in
Malvern along with another dozen sites spread around Worcester,
Bromsgrove and Redditch.

Pershore College is on the not matching list, and is now part of the
Warwickshire College Group. So I think I just need to switch the edubase
to that. Worcester Snoezelen is another one of those specialist teaching
centres that edubase does not list but is correct, so how do we tag them
to be ignored? Same with 'Avoncroft Arts Centre' but that is not in the
WR area, having a B postcode I think.

That just leave 4 more objects to check :)

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Dave F]

Great stuff. I've corrected a couple of my mistakes you've flagged.

Would it be possible to add the area location so we can check the ones 
where we have more local knowledge?


If we let you know the why certain schools are flagging an error could 
you update your list with an extra column to indicate the reason? It 
would save users from double checking.


On your OSM Keys page, what's the significance of the yellow/grey shading?

Cheers
Dave F.



On 24/01/2016 09:49, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

Just a quick note to say that I've updated the matching used in my
tool at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/ so that OSM
objects with a ref:edubase, ref:seedcode, or ref:deniirn that matches
an entry on the official list will now always be 'matched' in my tool.

(Previously the match would only be recorded if the OSM object was
within 1km of the postcode centroid recorded in the official list.
Also official list entries with a missing or invalid postcode could
not be matched at all. Both of these problems are now fixed.)

This new looseness in the matching is needed to cope with some schools
that have missing postcodes in the official lists, and multiple sites
and/or use PO boxes for their official address. However, it may lead
to some false positives, so there is a new report at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html which
lists possible problems with the matching that would benefit from
manual checking.

Best wishes,

Robert.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Lester Caine]

On 24/01/16 16:14, Dave F wrote:
> If we let you know the why certain schools are flagging an error could
> you update your list with an extra column to indicate the reason? It
> would save users from double checking.

Since a number of them are down to me, and ARE correct, that would be
useful ;)

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Brian Prangle]

DY almost complete so you need to pick another area. TF needs some
attention rgds Brian
On 24 Jan 2016 14:36, "Lester Caine"  wrote:

> On 24/01/16 13:09, Lester Caine wrote:
> > That just leave 4 more objects to check :)
>
> OK most of the 'red dot' items were out of area, but I've tidied them up
> anyway as they are still Worcestershire.
>
> Pershore College has been sort of solved by following the current
> signage ;) It has 'Part of Warwickshire College' on the entrance signs,
> so I've added that to the name.
>
> The campuses of 'Heart of Worcestershire College' all seem to have new
> signs with that on but nothing else, so I've added a '- xxx' with the
> campus name taken from their website. On my todo list still is to add
> the rest of the missing sites.
>
> Think hat this just leaves the Abbey Park Schools problem and the New
> College Worcester to be sorted. The information is in the database, just
> the progress display showing a problem.
>
> Next month I'll move on to 'DY' as a lot of that is still
> 'Worcestershire' :)
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
> Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Lester Caine]

On 24/01/16 17:53, Brian Prangle wrote:
> DY almost complete so you need to pick another area. TF needs some
> attention rgds Brian

I'll head over to HR ... although the corner of 'B' covering
Worcestershire still needs some work. Covering areas I've contacts who
can check things on the ground. ;)

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 24 January 2016 at 16:14, Dave F  wrote:
> Would it be possible to add the area location so we can check the ones where
> we have more local knowledge?

I've added the postcodes from the official data to the second table on
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/matching-queries.html . It's not
easy to determine a location area for the unmatched schools in the
first table -- essentially all I have is the coordinates of the OSM
object. Hopefully the postcodes in the second table will be helpful.

> If we let you know the why certain schools are flagging an error could you
> update your list with an extra column to indicate the reason? It would save
> users from double checking.

Maybe. Though it's not clear exactly how best to implement it.
Possibly the note would have to be tied to the OSM object number. I'll
have a think about it. The highlighting (see below) may help people
only check on things that have changed recently though, so it may not
be that much of a problem.

> On your OSM Keys page, what's the significance of the yellow/grey shading?

On many of the tables in my tools, the grey backgrounds are the
default, and the yellow highlights are to indicate rows where the OSM
last edit is recent. (Currently 'recent' means within the last 10
days.) To complicate things further, in the table at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/osm-tag-keys.html rows that have
an explanatory note never get highlighted. The idea there was to
highlight recent unusual / unexpected key names for checking, hence
wanting to exclude things that were understood. I'm not sure whether
this is a good idea though, or just more confusing.

Best wishes,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 17:53 +, Brian Prangle wrote:
> DY almost complete so you need to pick another area. TF needs some
> attention rgds Brian

I have done some work on rural TF, hopefully it has moved off the
bottom of the league table. I am avoiding the urban area for now as a I
back at The Cock with the linux group on Thursday and I am hoping to
inspire them to use their local knowledge. Well I can try.

Over 3 months I see TF as easily achievable. I have cleared most of
North SY, although I can see Shropshire a achievable SY extends to the
Welsh coast!!!

Phil (trigpoint)

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb