Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
Durham University has a mixture of colleges that are independently owned/run but affiliated to the university, and ones which are totally owned by the university (perhaps some mixed). Teaching is done centrally in whatever department subject is relevant. Take a look at this relation... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1286552 And this department building... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/29065345 There's probably some not-so-good tagging. The accommodation blocks shouldn't really be amenity=college for example. I made a map layer: http://www.livingwithdragons.com/2011/04/university-map-colleges (no longer available online) The issue is I'm not on the university staff to provide technical support or knowledge. We've made a big step by having OSM/OCM as an option on http://www.dur.ac.uk/map/ This is quite old, possible even predating the existence of OSM relations. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Durham#Durham_Specific_Tagging It makes reference to this page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oxford#Oxford_Specific_Tagging -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
On 5 December 2011 17:44, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: You may remember the announcement of the University of Cambridge's OpenStreetMap project back in July I was appointed to the project from that and I have now written up a bit about what I'm doing on my OSM diary ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/davidearl/diary/15398 ), and also published the tagging schema I'm working to ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge ) (which is, of course, a living document which we'll be updating as things progress), and which I hope may help others inclined to map parts of the University. One thing that jumped out to me in the diary entry linked above was the suggestion that all paths/tracks on University land should be marked access=private. The rationale given is that a Permissive Footpath in UK legal parlance has a specific meaning that doesn't apply to the paths there. That may be the case, but I don't think that OSM's access=permissive necessarily corresponds to that strict meaning. I've always used access=permissive to indicate that the there's no guaranteed right of way, but that owner is generally happy for people to use the route without needing to seek special permission on an individual basis -- which is my interpolation of what http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access says for access=permissive and access=private. That being the case, I'm not convinced that all the paths through colleges are best tagged by access=private. I don't know if things have changed now, but my former college (Pembroke) used to allow free/open access to visitors (during the day, if not in large groups, and not during exam term). I don't think that this corresponds to the OSM wiki definition of access=private with which the paths are currently tagged. While access=permissive may not be prefect, I think it's the closest OSM access tag for the situation on the ground there. Tagging all the ways within the college as access=private also removes the distinction of which ways are actually marked as private to visitors. (In Pembroke there were a only a few such paths: one going to the Master's Lodge, one in the Fellows' Garden, and one along the back of the Hall / Senior Parlour, and probably some of the access gates which are generally kept locked.) While the university may not like the term permissive I think it would be the closest access=* value as far as OSM is concerned, at least for the colleges that do allow open access to visitors. Then of course there are the tourist routes in the colleges where you have to pay to look round. Apart from having to pay for admission, these routes would also be similar to the routes in colleges that don't charge. Overall, I think they're closer to access=permissive than access=private, as there's a standard admission policy of pay X to get in, rather than people having to negotiate individual terms for access. Is there a specific access tag for this sort of situation already? What do we do for (say) paths in national trust gardens or theme parks where there's an admission charge? (Maybe access=customer, though the wiki says that it's use is disputed.) (Finally, as an aside: for official UK Permissive Footpaths, I think using designation=permissive_footpath in addition to *=permissive would be better tagging. It's got a reasonable amount of usage: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/designation#values and using this tag would make it clear which ways were officially designated as a permissive footpath and which just had generally permissive access of the sort that I'm suggesting above.) What do other people think? -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:08 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote: What do other people think? If there's a strong view not to have these parenthesised bits there, I'll take them out of the name tags. I think it would be best to have the information somewhere, in a consistent form (this probably means always using the same tag), but for it not to be in the name tag. I'm not sure what the tag should be, I don't think operator sounds right. Perhaps affiliation? (I know someone with good knowledge of CU formalities and terminology, and will ask him for suggestions.) __John ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
David Earl david@... writes: I'm not overly wedded to name=Clare College (University of Cambridge) and the like. Indeed, for the University rendering I will be removing these suffixes automatically because the context and colours will make it completely obvious. Well, in that case, can I urge you to tag for the renderer and remove the suffix from the data! I think anyone looking at a map of Cambridge might have an idea that there is a university there and that any colleges or academic-sounding buildings are more likely than not to be part of it. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
On Friday 09 December 2011, Ed Avis wrote: David Earl david@... writes: I'm not overly wedded to name=Clare College (University of Cambridge) and the like. Indeed, for the University rendering I will be removing these suffixes automatically because the context and colours will make it completely obvious. Well, in that case, can I urge you to tag for the renderer and remove the suffix from the data! I think anyone looking at a map of Cambridge might have an idea that there is a university there and that any colleges or academic-sounding buildings are more likely than not to be part of it. Don't forget that Cambridge is also the home of Anglia Ruskin University. robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
On 06/12/2011 12:54, Stephen Gower wrote: On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 05:44:48PM +, David Earl wrote: I was appointed to the project from that [...] Congratulations! Thank you! and also published the tagging schema I'm working to ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge ) Can I pursuade you to remove the (University of Cambridge) string from the name= keys? 1) It's incorrect, unless the parenthesis are genuinely in the name of the College/Dept/etc. 2) It's duplicated by data in the operator= field 3) It makes for ugly maps Thanks for the comment. I'm not overly wedded to name=Clare College (University of Cambridge) and the like. Indeed, for the University rendering I will be removing these suffixes automatically because the context and colours will make it completely obvious. I'm largely following the existing convention for the CU institutions (which admittedly I probably started way, way back). However, the reason is precisely to make non-specialised maps more helpful. If you don't know, there is no clue that New Museums Site as a caption on the map has any connection with the University (or indeed, as there are two universities in Cambridge, which), and arguably the University of Cambridge bit is the more important part. You can argue, and I would probably agree, that this is to some extent tagging for the renderer, and now that I'm making the operator tags ubiquitous the otherwise missing information is now there. On the other hand, is ANY non-specialist renderer going to take any notice? I doubt it. You'd have to dig deep and quite technically to discover the info. Regarding point 1, it's the colleges and sites that are the issue[1]. I think 'incorrect' is too strong. The naming is hierarchical in some sense. The New Museums Site is part of the wider University of Cambridge, and just as in some contexts you need to qualify Cambridge as Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England (so not Cambridge, MA, USA or Cambridge, Gloucestershire, England) to inform and to avoid ambiguity, so here also. The colleges are slightly different in that they are independent, but but affiliated[2] to the University. But spelling that relationship out is overkill - many of the colleges describe themselves as this in the way I have done (usually without the parentheses) on their web sites and/or display the University's logo (though some just say X College, Cambridge - some are more independently minded than others). So: - it makes no difference to the University project either way - I think it produces more helpful, useful maps - but longer captions do have visual problems Finally, a couple of related points: * Many of the colleges have satellite sites. For example The Colony and Cripps Court. I and others have actually named these along the lines of The Colony (Clare College), Cripps Court (Magdalene College) which by the strict argument above shouldn't be. But I doubt even the majority of Cambridge people would have a clue what that was about without the qualifying information. Should that go too? If it stays, why not the others? Or conversely, should it actually be The Colony (Clare College, University of Cambridge) or some such. * Cripps Court is an interesting example, because both Magdalene and Selwyn Colleges have satellite sites named Cripps Court. Qualification here resolves serious ambiguity in the absence of other information presented on typical maps. * The same is true for many non University premises as well. Castle Court vs Castle Court (Cambridgeshire County Council), with completely analogous operator/occupier etc, and helpfulness considerations. * Why are we naming shops according to their occupants? If we take this argument to its limits, no premises should be named like this. It's a pragmatism vs. pedantry argument. What do other people think? If there's a strong view not to have these parenthesised bits there, I'll take them out of the name tags. David [1] departments aren't geographical features, and I am indeed replacing those with the names of the buildings which they occupy - though sometimes a building is christened according to the department occupying it and confusingly that sticks long after the department has moved! I have resisted the temptation to put name=Austin Building (University Computing Service) [2] my word, not the formal description of the relationship ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 05:44:48PM +, David Earl wrote: I was appointed to the project from that [...] Congratulations! and also published the tagging schema I'm working to ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge ) Can I pursuade you to remove the (University of Cambridge) string from the name= keys? 1) It's incorrect, unless the parenthesis are genuinely in the name of the College/Dept/etc. 2) It's duplicated by data in the operator= field 3) It makes for ugly maps Cheers Stephen ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Project Drake - mapping the University of Cambridge
You may remember the announcement of the University of Cambridge's OpenStreetMap project back in July ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/012067.html ). I was appointed to the project from that and I have now written up a bit about what I'm doing on my OSM diary ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/davidearl/diary/15398 ), and also published the tagging schema I'm working to ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge ) (which is, of course, a living document which we'll be updating as things progress), and which I hope may help others inclined to map parts of the University. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
