Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 23/05/15 16:36, David Earl wrote: As I said, I think the upward compatible change for this is to use a tag with the unique ID of whatever operator (and I think URL would be a good one, not as a link, but an ID, since two people can't have the same one, and all orgs we'd be interested in would have one). That way operator remains the human-friendly item it already is. While not popular, the addition of identifiers IS now gaining traction, especially where the underlying data relates to imports from other places. Personally I would see no conflict if contributions such as the the UofC material had it's own 'facilities' reference which then allows all of the estates management data to be linked to the map. The lookup that the reference accesses could be direct to the relevant collage and department on the UofC website, but additionally when logged in it would go to private data. OSM does not need to duplicate all of the publically available data, but an agreed standard for accessing secondary levels is still lacking? -- 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] too many universities in Cambridge
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: On 23/05/15 16:36, David Earl wrote: As I said, I think the upward compatible change for this is to use a tag with the unique ID of whatever operator While not popular, the addition of identifiers IS now gaining traction, especially where the underlying data relates to imports from other places. +1 I am in the camp that strongly supports retaining primary key references on the OSM side. It works great, and the occasional problem (for example manual edits deleting the ref) appear to be exactly that: occasional. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 23/05/15 13:41, David Earl wrote: I'm not sure about the UK company registration number as an ID I was suggesting the formal legal name. I just added the RC number for completeness. Of course this also means that references to University of Cambridge as operator, would need to be replaced by The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
I've just been looking at operator tags on amenity=university. The first point is that 600+ are not tagged with operator. Secondly, *university hospitals*, such as Addenbrookes cause problems. In practice most buildings in university hospitals are NHS owned operated (I got round this at QMC Nottingham because the medical school is in a discrete part of the building) with only some parts being university proper (mainly some teaching research facilities). I doubt for instance if the East Anglian Blood Transfusion Centr http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52161480e is a university particularly as the operator is given as National Blood Service. Addenbrookes only does clinical teaching so is different from QMC. However there are plenty of 'University Hospitals' which are pure NHS establishments but which do some teaching. IMO Addenbrookes should be tagged operator=Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. As an addendum the Addenbrookes campus raises another issue: there are at least 3 hospitals on site (Addenbrookes itself, the Rosie the new Papworth). The campus as a whole and the individual hospitals can all be tagged as amenity=hospital, which I would regard as valid tagging, because the campus and its constituent elements are different things so not violating one tag one element. This is a broader problem related to one element is part of a bigger whole. Either way I would avoid the multiple hospital icons as Addenbrookes is currently shown. A third problem are *associated research institutes*. For instance on the Nottingham main campus is the MRC Institute of Hearing Research. This is in a dedicated building built in the early 1980s, presumably with MRC funds, but on UoN land. Similarly I'm not sure of the status of the LMB on the Addenbrookes site: in the past this was wholly owned operated by the MRC (I could ask, I knew the current director when I was an undergrad, and met him again last year): certainly most staff had fairly limited university connections, although more senior ones often got college fellowships, and junior ones did a bit of teaching. (As an aside, Wolfson House, where the OSM servers are located used to more complicated: UCL ran out of money building it so get the MRC to chip in and the MRC in turn had a lease on the top two floors, as well as another unit on the 1st floor. The latter unit was embedded in the university Genetics department, the other units were not). (There is a little used tags amenity=research_institution or research_institution=yes for these; as someone who spent a significant part of my career in such places I dislike them being neglected). Obviously federated institutions cause particular problems with a single operator tag. These obviously include such places as Oxford, Cambridge, London (and perhaps less relevant now University of Wales, and in the more distant past Durham (Newcastle) and St Andrews (Dundee), but also National University of Ireland. David's use of Institution (Federation) is about the best one can do for now, but it may well be worth thinking about how to address this with a more formal tag. I'm sure many other non-university examples will come to mind. So what can we do: 1. Add operator tags to existing amenity=university elements 2. Develop some consensus ideas about mapping of university hospitals multi-hospital campuses 3. Think about some tags to manage federated bodies (perhaps just federated_operator would do. Cheers, Jerry On 22 May 2015 at 14:49, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for Nottingham in China. Read what I said, please: If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. I make no assertion that all parts of the same university are within a dozen miles. I hope you realise that your tagging (using tags that imply 1200 different universities) is causing problems, and think what could I do to help other people rather than I don't want to change anything. Thanks, Andy ___ 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] too many universities in Cambridge
Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge is most definitely operated by NHS. However, there is a medical school which is part of the University which is on the same site, among several other University departments and labs, and increasingly private companies, Astra Zeneca is building a large new facility here currently [1]. This is collectively called the Cambridge Biomedical Campus[3]. There are also places within the main hospital where the university has a presence, but does not operate or occupy the building. For University search purposes, I have put nodes on the map where these occur (I've used the same technique where the University has a room or office within a larger building that is not theirs). There is a problem having 'operator=Magdalene College' and similar rather than operator='Magdalene College (University of Cambridge)', putting aside the way we currently use these for the University of Cambridge, in that there is more than one Magdalene College (Oxford has one, and others named like Cambridge's, and there may well be others, and I'm sure that happens elsewhere as well. While this may not be avoidable for operators worldwide in general, it helps differentiate in this case at least. David [1] here: http://map.cam.ac.uk/#52.173728,0.137372,16,52.173326,0.132480 [2] e.g. http://map.cam.ac.uk/Division+of+Anaesthesia#52.174966,0.141980,18 [3] http://map.cam.ac.uk/Cambridge+Biomedical+Campus#52.174848,0.139145,15 On Sat, 23 May 2015 at 11:29 SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: I've just been looking at operator tags on amenity=university. The first point is that 600+ are not tagged with operator. Secondly, *university hospitals*, such as Addenbrookes cause problems. In practice most buildings in university hospitals are NHS owned operated (I got round this at QMC Nottingham because the medical school is in a discrete part of the building) with only some parts being university proper (mainly some teaching research facilities). I doubt for instance if the East Anglian Blood Transfusion Centr http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52161480e is a university particularly as the operator is given as National Blood Service. Addenbrookes only does clinical teaching so is different from QMC. However there are plenty of 'University Hospitals' which are pure NHS establishments but which do some teaching. IMO Addenbrookes should be tagged operator=Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. As an addendum the Addenbrookes campus raises another issue: there are at least 3 hospitals on site (Addenbrookes itself, the Rosie the new Papworth). The campus as a whole and the individual hospitals can all be tagged as amenity=hospital, which I would regard as valid tagging, because the campus and its constituent elements are different things so not violating one tag one element. This is a broader problem related to one element is part of a bigger whole. Either way I would avoid the multiple hospital icons as Addenbrookes is currently shown. A third problem are *associated research institutes*. For instance on the Nottingham main campus is the MRC Institute of Hearing Research. This is in a dedicated building built in the early 1980s, presumably with MRC funds, but on UoN land. Similarly I'm not sure of the status of the LMB on the Addenbrookes site: in the past this was wholly owned operated by the MRC (I could ask, I knew the current director when I was an undergrad, and met him again last year): certainly most staff had fairly limited university connections, although more senior ones often got college fellowships, and junior ones did a bit of teaching. (As an aside, Wolfson House, where the OSM servers are located used to more complicated: UCL ran out of money building it so get the MRC to chip in and the MRC in turn had a lease on the top two floors, as well as another unit on the 1st floor. The latter unit was embedded in the university Genetics department, the other units were not). (There is a little used tags amenity=research_institution or research_institution=yes for these; as someone who spent a significant part of my career in such places I dislike them being neglected). Obviously federated institutions cause particular problems with a single operator tag. These obviously include such places as Oxford, Cambridge, London (and perhaps less relevant now University of Wales, and in the more distant past Durham (Newcastle) and St Andrews (Dundee), but also National University of Ireland. David's use of Institution (Federation) is about the best one can do for now, but it may well be worth thinking about how to address this with a more formal tag. I'm sure many other non-university examples will come to mind. So what can we do: 1. Add operator tags to existing amenity=university elements 2. Develop some consensus ideas about mapping of university hospitals multi-hospital campuses 3. Think about some tags to manage federated bodies
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22 May 2015 at 14:58, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Yes, the operator tags are the same when it is the same institution - the colleges are independent institutions, part of the larger federation. Is it necessary to show the college = university relationship in OSM? If we tag one (set of) structures as King's College, and another as Peterhouse, won't that suffice? Another approach would be to label each college with the equivalent Wikidata identifier: King's College = Q924289 (resolves to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q924289 ) Peterhouse = Q650068 (resolves to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q650068 ) Wikidata then shows each as an instance of a college of the University of Cambridge (Q1055028) (Whatever approach we take; there is benefit in including Wikidata IDs.) -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Indeed, they would need unique IDs of some kind for this to work globally. I nearly said that in that mail. I would probably prefer that in a different tag that wasn't actually usually presented to a human reader, and I'm not sure about the UK company registration number as an ID, because not all operators are companies and it'#s UK specific. A URL as an ID might be OK though, as those must belong to the organisation in question. Though they are always subject to change. On Sat, 23 May 2015 at 13:36 David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: On 23/05/15 12:02, David Earl wrote: There is a problem having 'operator=Magdalene College' and similar rather than operator='Magdalene College (University of Cambridge)' Although I think, where operator is used at all, it is largely used with a loose choice of name, in this case, if you want an unambiguous name for use in the UK, simply use the formal name of the royal charter company, i.e. Magdalene College Cambridge and Magdalene College Oxford (company numbers RC000333 and RC000334 respectively), rather than a name based on their trading name. Legally these are the legal names of the entities that own and operate the land in question. Companies house actually use monocase, so the capitalisation is arbitrary. If you want globally unique names, I think you need an additional tag to indicate the namespace (England or Wales registered company, in this case). Note that the name attribute is generally the trading as name, which is also consistent with the what is on the ground principle. If you actually used the company name for most MacDonalds people would find it very confusing, as a lot of them are franchises run by companies with MacDonalds nowhere in their name. For operator, I would expect to see the legal entity. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 23/05/2015 12:49, David Earl wrote: I'm sure there are many ways of doing this, but that is what I did. This thread seems determined to undermine the University of Cambridge map by wanting to change everything it relies on. Those who add/amend data to OSM do so to make it the most accurate database possible. You appear to be against change because it would affect the University of Cambridge map. This is tagging for the renderer is to be discouraged. I did spend a long time thinking about how to do it at the beginning of the project, and did publish the details then. Reorganising it dramatically four years on for the sake of it would probably mean U of C abandoning OSM as being too costly to maintain. A days work? I'm in the process of updating PROWS from the way I initially tagged them to the newer, agreed method as it improves the quality of the database. Extra work for me, but worth it for the good of OSM. David Fox --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Hi Going minorly off on a tangent - One item I would change is leisure=pitch which current represents whole areas of sports grounds to leisure=recreation_ground, have leisure=pitch to indicate just the pitches (ie the white lines of a football pitch). Currently there are situations with two 'pitches' on top of each other. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.40868/-2.37860 David Fox On 22/05/2015 14:58, David Earl wrote: Yes, the operator tags are the same when it is the same institution - the colleges are independent institutions, part of the larger federation. This is part of the complexity of this. I'm not arguing I don't want to change anything, just that there's too much gratuitous change which breaks real, existing products because of hypothetical futures.The wiki analogy is wrong here I think - that's the content. It's much more an API, as I think you were essentially agreeing, and people go to great lengths to try to maintain backward compatibility, only deprecating things when they absolutely have to. And it's not so much me not wanting to change things, of course change happens, it's random, arbitrary, incompatible change that is such a problem to deal with. Dan's not arguing for that, and I've already said I'll look at it and see what's involved. But not today! On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 14:49 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for Nottingham in China. Read what I said, please: If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. I make no assertion that all parts of the same university are within a dozen miles. I hope you realise that your tagging (using tags that imply 1200 different universities) is causing problems, and think what could I do to help other people rather than I don't want to change anything. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Can you put that on a different thread. On Sat, 23 May 2015 at 12:15 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi Going minorly off on a tangent - One item I would change is leisure=pitch which current represents whole areas of sports grounds to leisure=recreation_ground, have leisure=pitch to indicate just the pitches (ie the white lines of a football pitch). Currently there are situations with two 'pitches' on top of each other. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.40868/-2.37860 David Fox On 22/05/2015 14:58, David Earl wrote: Yes, the operator tags are the same when it is the same institution - the colleges are independent institutions, part of the larger federation. This is part of the complexity of this. I'm not arguing I don't want to change anything, just that there's too much gratuitous change which breaks real, existing products because of hypothetical futures.The wiki analogy is wrong here I think - that's the content. It's much more an API, as I think you were essentially agreeing, and people go to great lengths to try to maintain backward compatibility, only deprecating things when they absolutely have to. And it's not so much me not wanting to change things, of course change happens, it's random, arbitrary, incompatible change that is such a problem to deal with. Dan's not arguing for that, and I've already said I'll look at it and see what's involved. But not today! On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 14:49 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for Nottingham in China. Read what I said, please: If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. I make no assertion that all parts of the same university are within a dozen miles. I hope you realise that your tagging (using tags that imply 1200 different universities) is causing problems, and think what could I do to help other people rather than I don't want to change anything. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- [image: Avast logo] http://www.avast.com/ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
David Earl wrote: Can you put that on a different thread. David - could you trim messages before replying? 1 line of message for 100 line of quote isn't good. Thanks. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/too-many-universities-in-Cambridge-tp5845481p5845668.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
I'm sure there are many ways of doing this, but that is what I did. This thread seems determined to undermine the University of Cambridge map by wanting to change everything it relies on. I did spend a long time thinking about how to do it at the beginning of the project, and did publish the details then. Reorganising it dramatically four years on for the sake of it would probably mean U of C abandoning OSM as being too costly to maintain. On Sat, 23 May 2015 at 12:43 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:58, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Yes, the operator tags are the same when it is the same institution - the colleges are independent institutions, part of the larger federation. Is it necessary to show the college = university relationship in OSM? If we tag one (set of) structures as King's College, and another as Peterhouse, won't that suffice? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
2015-05-23 12:49 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: On Sat, 23 May 2015 at 12:43 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:58, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Yes, the operator tags are the same when it is the same institution - the colleges are independent institutions, part of the larger federation. Is it necessary to show the college = university relationship in OSM? If we tag one (set of) structures as King's College, and another as Peterhouse, won't that suffice? I'm sure there are many ways of doing this, but that is what I did. In my opinion: no it wouldn't suffice, because it doesn't identify the operator among all the other King's Colleges in the country. IMHO it's not encoding a relationship into the tag, it's just an unambiguous name. Anyway it's harmless! This thread seems determined to undermine the University of Cambridge map by wanting to change everything it relies on. Well no, clearly no-one's doing this with an intent to destroy the university map! I assume everyone here just wants to make sure OSM is good. I did spend a long time thinking about how to do it at the beginning of the project, and did publish the details then. Reorganising it dramatically four years on for the sake of it would probably mean U of C abandoning OSM as being too costly to maintain. Sorry, I guess this happens. But this kind of discussion is necessary for us as a local community - otherwise we'll never really share information about how we tag universities, hospitals etc. As long as we keep it from getting sidetracked, and assume good faith, we'll be OK. I know you would have liked all the discussion to be done and dusted during your planning stages, I'm sorry I wasn't around for it. Best Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 23/05/15 12:02, David Earl wrote: There is a problem having 'operator=Magdalene College' and similar rather than operator='Magdalene College (University of Cambridge)' Although I think, where operator is used at all, it is largely used with a loose choice of name, in this case, if you want an unambiguous name for use in the UK, simply use the formal name of the royal charter company, i.e. Magdalene College Cambridge and Magdalene College Oxford (company numbers RC000333 and RC000334 respectively), rather than a name based on their trading name. Legally these are the legal names of the entities that own and operate the land in question. Companies house actually use monocase, so the capitalisation is arbitrary. If you want globally unique names, I think you need an additional tag to indicate the namespace (England or Wales registered company, in this case). Note that the name attribute is generally the trading as name, which is also consistent with the what is on the ground principle. If you actually used the company name for most MacDonalds people would find it very confusing, as a lot of them are franchises run by companies with MacDonalds nowhere in their name. For operator, I would expect to see the legal entity. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
As I said, I think the upward compatible change for this is to use a tag with the unique ID of whatever operator (and I think URL would be a good one, not as a link, but an ID, since two people can't have the same one, and all orgs we'd be interested in would have one). That way operator remains the human-friendly item it already is. On Sat, 23 May 2015 at 15:24 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: On 23/05/15 13:26, Dan S wrote: This thread seems determined to undermine the University of Cambridge map by wanting to change everything it relies on. Well no, clearly no-one's doing this with an intent to destroy the university map! I assume everyone here just wants to make sure OSM is good. On the particular point of what goes IN the operator tag ... which is all that is actually being discussed here ... Therre needs to be good reason to change data that is already in common use and is actually cleanly documented. If there is some overriding reason why the content of this tag needs changing I have yet to see it. In the absence of any other may of including the objects hierarchy, this seems to be the sensible way of handing things, and I can see the need for 'Collage-UofX-X' especially where even the collage's campus way be across several places. Does the University of Oxford have any satellites in Cambridge? The current documented sytle works and should perhaps be documented as the general standard? ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 23/05/15 13:26, Dan S wrote: This thread seems determined to undermine the University of Cambridge map by wanting to change everything it relies on. Well no, clearly no-one's doing this with an intent to destroy the university map! I assume everyone here just wants to make sure OSM is good. On the particular point of what goes IN the operator tag ... which is all that is actually being discussed here ... Therre needs to be good reason to change data that is already in common use and is actually cleanly documented. If there is some overriding reason why the content of this tag needs changing I have yet to see it. In the absence of any other may of including the objects hierarchy, this seems to be the sensible way of handing things, and I can see the need for 'Collage-UofX-X' especially where even the collage's campus way be across several places. Does the University of Oxford have any satellites in Cambridge? The current documented sytle works and should perhaps be documented as the general standard? ( And PLEASE trim everything if you must top post ... even on a mobile phone these posts have been painful! ) -- 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] too many universities in Cambridge
On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 11:54 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). Oh, I did, I'd forgotten! It's this bit at the end I meant: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge#Non-university_references . It's what makes the red buildings on the University map (like ARU). ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently What *would* you show for Cambridge (or other spread out ones) for this? Where actually *is* the University of Cambridge? What would you show that the current tagging doesn't already achieve? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:30 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. So the question, I guess, is what jobs amenity=university is doing in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. If we made a two-step change such that all building=yes, amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.* were first modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 of the 1200 objects. Best Dan 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
I don't think it renders it (though I thought it used to). The humanitarian style renders the tag, and Cambridge looks mortar-board crazy: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/52.2039/0.1182layers=H Dan 2015-05-22 12:30 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. So the question, I guess, is what jobs amenity=university is doing in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. If we made a two-step change such that all building=yes, amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.* were first modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 of the 1200 objects. Best Dan 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged university
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
2015-05-22 12:33 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently What *would* you show for Cambridge (or other spread out ones) for this? Where actually *is* the University of Cambridge? What would you show that the current tagging doesn't already achieve? It doesn't matter what I would do. The UoC tagging is inconsistent with the tagging for other universities, in a way that means no-one can currently design a UK-wide map render that can handle universities properly. I understand that you don't like this erupting under your feet, but I'm afraid that's what happens in wiki-like systems. Please, please be happy that I'm a considerate map editor who tries to discuss rather than just to edit. We have absolutely no guarantees that a map editor who loves consistency but doesn't love communication will not break your schema at any moment! I'd be really grateful if you could comment on my suggestion about modifying the building tags. Best Dan On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:30 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. So the question, I guess, is what jobs amenity=university is doing in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. If we made a two-step change such that all building=yes, amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.* were first modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 of the 1200 objects. Best Dan 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. So the question, I guess, is what jobs amenity=university is doing in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. If we made a two-step change such that all building=yes, amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.* were first modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 of the 1200 objects. Best Dan 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may have some buildings but really
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22/05/15 12:40, Dan S wrote: I'd be really grateful if you could comment on my suggestion about modifying the building tags. Dan S ... The question still remains ... what are you trying to achieve? Count the number of buildings making up a university, or something else? In the distant past there were proposals for a much better hierarchy of 'places' where a place like 'University of Cambridge' would have a place holder, and everything related to that place would be linked as such. This probably pre-dates relations, but I STILL think that it has a practical use today. When you select 'university, country' you see a list of entities with a single entry per, but because it's not 'physical map information' it's not acceptable to some :( -- 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] too many universities in Cambridge
On Fri, 22 May 2015, Dan S wrote: I'd be really grateful if you could comment on my suggestion about modifying the building tags. David has commented (twice), both with follow-up questions. -Paul ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may have some buildings but really it's a concept not a physical object - ultimately everything on the map is just a part, not the whole. 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change under your feet. For example, there is a thread on talk discussing completely changing the amenities altogether, without regard for people who want to use this stuff in the real world. My view is that tags are merely tokens and too much is read into the words. They are part of the API and the fact you can change them because you prefer some other structure doesn't mean you should. The flexibility means we can introduce new things easily, but constant change is hard to cope with. The costs are borne elsewhere, and what really does it buy us? So, I think it's OK the way it is. If it offends you unbearably, building=university wouldn't be too hard to cope with, but please, please don't just do it, let me change the University software first, otherwise the map will be broken on next update (which are frequent) and they will be very annoyed. As I said, this is effectively part of the API, even though it may not feel like it, and constitutes a non-upward compatible change. If you do want to do it, please do it all, not in bits, and bear in mind this has a direct financial cost to me as a freelancer supporting the University map, and that the University has been a big benefactor for OSM, even though they get the rest of the map back in return, so you really don't want to give them a slap in the face for doing so. David On Thu, 21 May 2015 at 23:13 Phillip Barnett phillip.p.barn...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
A quick scan of Oxford shows the colleges (and a few multi-building areas such as the Science Area) as amenity=university, with buildings within colleges and odd departments as building=university. So we have a lot of universities too. Other big difference is that we haven't generally added (University of Oxford) to the end of all the college names... I'd tend to go for amenity=university for a contiguous site with a single name, with the occasional split site (eg on two sides of a public road) as a multi-polygon. Then I'd add a *tag* to show that the site was part of a collection making up the University (probably operator, though that feels wrong, since the colleges are independent entities). It's *not* a candidate for a relation because there are no geographical relationships between the components. Richard On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may have some buildings but really it's a concept not a physical object - ultimately everything on the map is just a part, not the whole. 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change under your feet. For example, there is a thread on talk discussing completely changing the amenities altogether, without regard for people who want to use this stuff in the real world. My view is that tags are merely tokens and too much is read into the words. They are part of the API and the fact you can change them because you prefer some other structure doesn't mean you should. The flexibility means we can introduce new things easily, but constant
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. So the question, I guess, is what jobs amenity=university is doing in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. If we made a two-step change such that all building=yes, amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.* were first modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 of the 1200 objects. Best Dan 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were maintainable
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22/05/15 12:26, David Earl wrote: If this discussion were happening at the start of the project four years ago. It wasn't as if the scheme wasn't public then. But it's been implemented now for several years, and to reorganise it is unhelpful and costly, with little benefit other than a sense of it being right. (And in any group of 10 mappers, there seem to be 11 opinions as to what is right, concensus is very hard to achieve). Only 11 :) -- 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] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22/05/15 12:00, David Earl wrote: The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). Oh, I did, I'd forgotten! It's this bit at the end I meant: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge#Non-university_references . It's what makes the red buildings on the University map (like ARU). That makes sense on a number of disjointed facilities. I've not looked at Warwick University recently, but it has acquired satellite locations over the years. But Hospitals are other entities that would benefit from the same treatment, and the =reference element does seem to be the way many of these sprawling installations now help to show visitors just where to park for a particular department. A couple of my regular haunts have just completed a re-signing exercise to help identification of departments on a number of levels. -- 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] too many universities in Cambridge
If this discussion were happening at the start of the project four years ago. It wasn't as if the scheme wasn't public then. But it's been implemented now for several years, and to reorganise it is unhelpful and costly, with little benefit other than a sense of it being right. (And in any group of 10 mappers, there seem to be 11 opinions as to what is right, concensus is very hard to achieve). On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:22 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: A quick scan of Oxford shows the colleges (and a few multi-building areas such as the Science Area) as amenity=university, with buildings within colleges and odd departments as building=university. So we have a lot of universities too. Other big difference is that we haven't generally added (University of Oxford) to the end of all the college names... I'd tend to go for amenity=university for a contiguous site with a single name, with the occasional split site (eg on two sides of a public road) as a multi-polygon. Then I'd add a *tag* to show that the site was part of a collection making up the University (probably operator, though that feels wrong, since the colleges are independent entities). It's *not* a candidate for a relation because there are no geographical relationships between the components. Richard On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM - it's not just some of its maps, it's completely central to the University map, not just a casual effort. The schema for tags that make the University map work is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated new bit, I must do so). As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. This raises some other points though... 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a part of a university a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's cases both ways. 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may have some buildings but really it's a concept not a physical object - ultimately everything on the map is just a part, not the whole. 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using OSM, especially if you can't manage the
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Right, OK thanks. So let me try and answer without raising any sub-controversies - that's why I was reluctant to answer what would you show for cambridge! If there was a single mortar-board for every geographically self-contained UoC site on the map - that seems rather reasonable. The minimalist way to achieve that would be for those sites to have amenity=university tag, and for none of the buildings within them to have that tag. (The humanitarian map would then look good...) I personally would find that still a little bit curious but here I'm not proposing to impose my ideal relation-tastic solution, since you've raised some objections to that kind of thing. For university buildings that are standalone, not part of a larger site - well I guess if I had to design a map I wouldn't put any mortar-board for them, though I might decide to give them a mortar-board at the highest zoom level. (This might be achieved via building=university perhaps. Though the question is about the rendering not the tagging.) Is this a meaningful answer to your rendering question? I hope so. Best Dan 2015-05-22 13:03 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Sorry, that wasn't intended to be provocative, it was a serious question. Irrespective of how it is tagged, how should one show a spread out institution on a map? If you do ARU with two mortar boards or some such should Cambridge be 10, one for each site, 41 including the colleges, or what? One could argue that it's the mapping you cited that's inadequate because it should collapse them into one when they are sufficiently close together to not be distinct (like ios does for photo locations on a map for example*), and that when zoomed in you *do* want them to be shown separately. In any case neither the current scheme nor a relation scheme preclude that, they are currently group-able by operator (which is a much more sustainable way of relating them IMO than relations). I asked about the building=university rendering because it would be a shame to lose the university buildings as distinct on the main map, and I have no control over fixing that. No doubt someone would catch up with it eventually. I would have to go back to the code to see what the exact implications of removing the amenity tags are, it's three years since I wrote it. I am almost certain that changing building=yes to building=university is harmless, but if I then have to rely on it, we have to be careful that university libraries aren't tagged building=library for example as the information gets lost. David * in similar vein one of the developments that's been requested for the university map is that when you get a search hit where the result blobs are overlapping they should be merged into one. This is very hard to do, so it will cost a lot. On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:40 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-22 12:33 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently What *would* you show for Cambridge (or other spread out ones) for this? Where actually *is* the University of Cambridge? What would you show that the current tagging doesn't already achieve? It doesn't matter what I would do. The UoC tagging is inconsistent with the tagging for other universities, in a way that means no-one can currently design a UK-wide map render that can handle universities properly. I understand that you don't like this erupting under your feet, but I'm afraid that's what happens in wiki-like systems. Please, please be happy that I'm a considerate map editor who tries to discuss rather than just to edit. We have absolutely no guarantees that a map editor who loves consistency but doesn't love communication will not break your schema at any moment! I'd be really grateful if you could comment on my suggestion about modifying the building tags. Best Dan On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:30 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for Nottingham in China. On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 14:23 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines m...@cbaines.net wrote: On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote: I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought! Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin Uni. I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with amenity=university, and actual organisations. Sure, but then you need to look at what is actually being tagged. We've already heard that there are 1219 different universities in Cambridge, so I was intrigued as to what they are. After all, I would expect amenity=university; name=University of Somewheresville to be a university. If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. But they are all different. There's a university named Music Centre. There's another university called Pavillion D. There's a third university called Forbes Mellon Library which is a surprising thing to call a university. There's a bunch of little unamed universities. And they all have different operator tags too. I suspect these are the names of buildings, not universities. I suspect they are operated by different sections of the one university, but there's no easy way to tell from the operator tag without a natural-language parser coupled with a wikipedia-based explanation of the constituent college system. Have a look at the data, and you'll see it's not as straightforward as you think. Sure, there's no one-to-one mapping between the real world and OSM features. But that's not what we're talking about here. Thanks, Andy ___ 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] too many universities in Cambridge
Sorry, that wasn't intended to be provocative, it was a serious question. Irrespective of how it is tagged, how should one show a spread out institution on a map? If you do ARU with two mortar boards or some such should Cambridge be 10, one for each site, 41 including the colleges, or what? One could argue that it's the mapping you cited that's inadequate because it should collapse them into one when they are sufficiently close together to not be distinct (like ios does for photo locations on a map for example*), and that when zoomed in you *do* want them to be shown separately. In any case neither the current scheme nor a relation scheme preclude that, they are currently group-able by operator (which is a much more sustainable way of relating them IMO than relations). I asked about the building=university rendering because it would be a shame to lose the university buildings as distinct on the main map, and I have no control over fixing that. No doubt someone would catch up with it eventually. I would have to go back to the code to see what the exact implications of removing the amenity tags are, it's three years since I wrote it. I am almost certain that changing building=yes to building=university is harmless, but if I then have to rely on it, we have to be careful that university libraries aren't tagged building=library for example as the information gets lost. David * in similar vein one of the developments that's been requested for the university map is that when you get a search hit where the result blobs are overlapping they should be merged into one. This is very hard to do, so it will cost a lot. On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:40 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-22 12:33 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently What *would* you show for Cambridge (or other spread out ones) for this? Where actually *is* the University of Cambridge? What would you show that the current tagging doesn't already achieve? It doesn't matter what I would do. The UoC tagging is inconsistent with the tagging for other universities, in a way that means no-one can currently design a UK-wide map render that can handle universities properly. I understand that you don't like this erupting under your feet, but I'm afraid that's what happens in wiki-like systems. Please, please be happy that I'm a considerate map editor who tries to discuss rather than just to edit. We have absolutely no guarantees that a map editor who loves consistency but doesn't love communication will not break your schema at any moment! I'd be really grateful if you could comment on my suggestion about modifying the building tags. Best Dan On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:30 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi David, Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM data for anything - such as: (a) to plot the density of universities per county (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates each university prominently - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim for global consistency ;) So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! I don't know what this camp is that didn't like building=university. Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. So the question, I guess, is what jobs amenity=university is doing in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. If we made a two-step change such that all building=yes, amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.* were first modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 of the 1200 objects. Best Dan 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com: Hi Dan, Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006).
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for Nottingham in China. Read what I said, please: If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. I make no assertion that all parts of the same university are within a dozen miles. I hope you realise that your tagging (using tags that imply 1200 different universities) is causing problems, and think what could I do to help other people rather than I don't want to change anything. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Yes, the operator tags are the same when it is the same institution - the colleges are independent institutions, part of the larger federation. This is part of the complexity of this. I'm not arguing I don't want to change anything, just that there's too much gratuitous change which breaks real, existing products because of hypothetical futures.The wiki analogy is wrong here I think - that's the content. It's much more an API, as I think you were essentially agreeing, and people go to great lengths to try to maintain backward compatibility, only deprecating things when they absolutely have to. And it's not so much me not wanting to change things, of course change happens, it's random, arbitrary, incompatible change that is such a problem to deal with. Dan's not arguing for that, and I've already said I'll look at it and see what's involved. But not today! On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 14:49 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) But also the assertion within a few dozen miles is wrong, as for Nottingham in China. Read what I said, please: If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. I make no assertion that all parts of the same university are within a dozen miles. I hope you realise that your tagging (using tags that imply 1200 different universities) is causing problems, and think what could I do to help other people rather than I don't want to change anything. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
2015-05-22 14:49 GMT+01:00 Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com: On 22 May 2015 at 14:27, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) but David's using a constrained and documented set of operator tags, not free-text. I think that's good. The oxbridge college system makes this a difficult case study! I think the operator tags here are appropriate. Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
2015-05-22 14:03 GMT+01:00 SK53 sk53@gmail.com: For what it is worth, the universities in Nottingham are mapped exactly the same way as Cambridge It doesn't look like that to me. A query on Nottingham finds 16 objects tagged amenity=university, of which 4 are buildings. It looks to me like Nottingham broadly uses amenity=university at site level rather than building level (with some exceptions). Finally, my general view is that the only sensible tag for consolidating separate campuses is to add an operator=* tag. We could do with some agreement about how to label campuses. Do we use University of Nottingham Jubilee Campus or Jubilee Campus etc. And of course some checking on the use of the operator tag itself. Sounds good. PS. The use of an icon on the HOT map layer doesn't work for me in 1st world countries: but I dont regard that as terribly important, surely the HOT layer needs to be directed at places which most need the rendering scheme chosen Oh, absolutely. Sorry for being unclear there: the HOT rendering is just a real-life example of the rendering problem I wanted to illustrate. Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote: I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought! Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin Uni. I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with amenity=university, and actual organisations. For example, you would not count the roads in a town by looking at all ways tagged with highway=(primary|secondary) in that town, as more than one way can make up just one named road. I think someone mentioned Cambridge Uni was using OpenStreetMap for some of its maps,* so I'd be nervous about proposing anything radical right now. But is there anyone on this list who is a Cambridge mapper, or connected to the university's use of mapping? It's possible that some team decided to use the tag to mark every college building (etc), when really amenity=university is supposed to mark a university, not a piece of a university. To do it properly it might need some neat relations to group these things. (Might be fun for someone who loves relations - various multi-site and hierarchical connections among the buildings scattered across town!) Alternatively there are tags in use such as building=university which might be good drop-in replacements... I have been doing some things around the University of Southampton, I have just made an attempt to bring the wiki page a bit more up to date [1]. It should now cover some of the basics. As for the tagging, for the University of Southampton, none of the software that I have written (e.g. [2]) relies on amenity=university. I am pretty much only relying on the URI's (uri tag) to link out of OpenStreetMap. This allows for going in to OpenStreetMap and identifying bits of information. In summary, I am not sure what amenity=university means, or should mean, however, it obviously plays a part in rendering OSM. I am unsure about relations, I think it remains to be seen if they are fit for purpose in this regard. 1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/University_of_Southampton 2: http://maps.southampton.ac.uk/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22 May 2015, at 12:30, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? Yes, for example this building at Heriot-Watt University: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22881764 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22881764 where I used the university=building tag over 6 years ago. With the grounds of the university being tagged amenity=university: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4388535 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4388535 I apply a similar principle to schools. Mapnik will render any building value, except building=no. There are some building values which get special treatment. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/project.mml#L468 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/project.mml#L468 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/buildings.mss https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/buildings.mss Shaun ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines m...@cbaines.net wrote: On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote: I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought! Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin Uni. I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with amenity=university, and actual organisations. Sure, but then you need to look at what is actually being tagged. We've already heard that there are 1219 different universities in Cambridge, so I was intrigued as to what they are. After all, I would expect amenity=university; name=University of Somewheresville to be a university. If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. But they are all different. There's a university named Music Centre. There's another university called Pavillion D. There's a third university called Forbes Mellon Library which is a surprising thing to call a university. There's a bunch of little unamed universities. And they all have different operator tags too. I suspect these are the names of buildings, not universities. I suspect they are operated by different sections of the one university, but there's no easy way to tell from the operator tag without a natural-language parser coupled with a wikipedia-based explanation of the constituent college system. Have a look at the data, and you'll see it's not as straightforward as you think. Sure, there's no one-to-one mapping between the real world and OSM features. But that's not what we're talking about here. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22 May 2015 at 11:54, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: 2. What is a University anyway? I'll not explore the concept of a university too far, since very little about groups of people is relevant to OSM! However, if you were to say What is the physical aspect of a university then I would say it's a collection of one or more places - usually parcels of ground, often with buildings. In OpenStreetMap we tend to represent collections of entities with a relation, unless the tagging of each part is substantially the same (i.e. no need for a relation when you split a road and add bridge tags. I note that the amenity=university tag is used mostly (exclusively?) on buildings, and I think that this is incorrect. I would expect a way tagged amenity=university to indicate that everything within that way - buildings, gardens, carparks etc - was part of the university. So we can probably retag things to cut down the numbers by using perimeters around particular areas. 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change under your feet. Yep, I certainly agree with you there. But when things are tagged 'incorrectly' (fsvo incorrect, of course), then we need to change the tagging. My view is that tags are merely tokens and too much is read into the words. Yep, I've gone on at length about this with people wishing to change the order of the characters within a particular tag - it's infuriating. bear in mind this has a direct financial cost to me as a freelancer supporting the University map, and that the University has been a big benefactor for OSM, even though they get the rest of the map back in return, so you really don't want to give them a slap in the face for doing so. Be careful. To say that we need to support your old tagging scheme indefinitely would seem to be a slap in the face for all our volunteers, now and in the future. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge
Without wanting to get into specific tags, or indeed into specific renderers, let’s step back and see if what we have got is what we want? The answer is probably no, IMHO. Take Newnham College (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/52.19959/0.10973layers=H) which I know fairly well. It is one site - Newnham College - and is part of the university. But the individual buildings within it are just that - buildings. In fact, the distinction between the various buildings is really only of relevance to the people within it, given that you can walk between the extremities Strachey in the east to Peile in the west without every going outside, and the fact that much of it is student’s rooms. So: - we need to be able to identify the site as Newnham College - we need to be able to identify Newnham College as part of the University of Cambridge - we need to be able to name and identify the buildings on the site, and to have them linked to Newnham College. But we do NOT need to reference them as universities in their own right So long as we use tagging and/or relationships which maintain those associations, we have clarity on the data and renderers can choose what to do with it. Stuart On 22 May 2015, at 14:22, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.commailto:gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2015 at 14:03, Christopher Baines m...@cbaines.netmailto:m...@cbaines.net wrote: On 21/05/15 22:39, Dan S wrote: I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought! Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin Uni. I think that it is a poor assumption to make that there exists a one to one mapping between objects (nodes, ways, relations) tagged with amenity=university, and actual organisations. Sure, but then you need to look at what is actually being tagged. We've already heard that there are 1219 different universities in Cambridge, so I was intrigued as to what they are. After all, I would expect amenity=university; name=University of Somewheresville to be a university. If there were two objects tagged as universities with identical names within a few dozen miles, I could make a guess they are the same university and write some rendering rules to suit. But they are all different. There's a university named Music Centre. There's another university called Pavillion D. There's a third university called Forbes Mellon Library which is a surprising thing to call a university. There's a bunch of little unamed universities. And they all have different operator tags too. I suspect these are the names of buildings, not universities. I suspect they are operated by different sections of the one university, but there's no easy way to tell from the operator tag without a natural-language parser coupled with a wikipedia-based explanation of the constituent college system. Have a look at the data, and you'll see it's not as straightforward as you think. Sure, there's no one-to-one mapping between the real world and OSM features. But that's not what we're talking about here. Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.orgmailto: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] too many universities in Cambridge
On 22/05/15 15:00, Dan S wrote: Andy, the operator tags are all the same, not the building names. No, they really aren't. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148247775 - Churchill College (University of Cambridge) http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12861651 - University of Cambridge http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/98523431 - Clare College (University of Cambridge) but David's using a constrained and documented set of operator tags, not free-text. I think that's good. The oxbridge college system makes this a difficult case study! I think the operator tags here are appropriate. The only problem with this type of data is that there is no 'cross-reference' ... my places hierarchy would have 'University of Cambridge' as a main place, and each of the collages would then have a place referencing 'University of Cambridge'. One can then flag a single 'University of Cambridge' icon at a macro level, and switch to icons for the collages at a suitable scale. That data in the map can then be cross-referenced from the master objects ... and be highlighted when a particular place is selected. -- 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] too many universities in Cambridge
I'm a Cambridge mapper, but I'd advise doing nothing until you've spoken with David Earl who was contracted by Cambridge University to actually map the university - see this link http://soc2012.soc.org.uk/node/16.html Thanks On 21 May 2015, at 22:39, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought! Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin Uni. I think someone mentioned Cambridge Uni was using OpenStreetMap for some of its maps,* so I'd be nervous about proposing anything radical right now. But is there anyone on this list who is a Cambridge mapper, or connected to the university's use of mapping? It's possible that some team decided to use the tag to mark every college building (etc), when really amenity=university is supposed to mark a university, not a piece of a university. To do it properly it might need some neat relations to group these things. (Might be fun for someone who loves relations - various multi-site and hierarchical connections among the buildings scattered across town!) Alternatively there are tags in use such as building=university which might be good drop-in replacements... Best Dan * They use OSM for their basemap: http://map.cam.ac.uk/ - I wonder if they're getting their POI info from it too ___ 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
