Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Phillip Barnett]

And in fact David Earl deserves recognition for pretty much single-handedly 
doing the original basic mapping of Cambridge at street level. (I did about 1% 
of it at the time, but had the excuse of very young children taking my 
attention)

Sent from my iPhone

> On 8 Feb 2020, at 14:30, Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> 
> Dave F wrote:
>> CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for 
>> them. Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're 
>> contributions are superior to those of any anybody else. 
>> Especially when they decided to knowingly go against accepted 
>> tagging procedures.
> 
> I think that's a little harsh - David Earl mapped the university in the
> _very_ early days of the project. There's stuff there dating back to
> 2006/2007. Cambridge was the first place to be mapped in great detail in the
> UK - even in 2011 I remember giving a talk at Oxford Geek Nights where I
> could still hold Cambridge up as an exemplar of how to do it. You can
> imagine how well that went down in Oxford. ;)
> 
> So it wasn't really "going against accepted tagging procedures", because
> tagging was still very much evolving back then. Fully in agreement that the
> time has come to update the tagging, but that's just a result of OSM
> changing - there's no need for any rancour against the original mappers.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html
> 
> ___
> 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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/02/2020 16:49, Phillip Barnett wrote:

And here is the email from the guy who did the original mapping, the last time 
this came up, including his reasoning for the amenity Tag rather than building 
tag https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017457.html


Note the time it took to write just that one post was longer than it 
would have taken to convert the OSM data & a few lines code to rectify 
the problem.


There isn't constant change. In this instance is was created incorrectly 
& needs to be fixed once.


His claim about building=university is moot. 'One feature, one OSM 
element' has been long established.


DaveF


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave F wrote:
> CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for 
> them. Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're 
> contributions are superior to those of any anybody else. 
> Especially when they decided to knowingly go against accepted 
> tagging procedures.

I think that's a little harsh - David Earl mapped the university in the
_very_ early days of the project. There's stuff there dating back to
2006/2007. Cambridge was the first place to be mapped in great detail in the
UK - even in 2011 I remember giving a talk at Oxford Geek Nights where I
could still hold Cambridge up as an exemplar of how to do it. You can
imagine how well that went down in Oxford. ;)

So it wasn't really "going against accepted tagging procedures", because
tagging was still very much evolving back then. Fully in agreement that the
time has come to update the tagging, but that's just a result of OSM
changing - there's no need for any rancour against the original mappers.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Great-Britain-f5372682.html

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 06/02/2020 15:48, Brian Prangle wrote:

"OSM is not beholden to data consumers.
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments

My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.
Upsetting CU isn't one"

  Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in
a lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplac
e


CU wanted a new site map. They paid someone to provide it for them. 
Which is fine, but please don't suggest they're contributions are 
superior to those of any anybody else. Especially when they decided to 
knowingly go against accepted tagging procedures. Many of us "put in a 
lot of resource".


They should expect their incorrect data to be rectified just as any of 
contributor should. I'm mildly irritated that these corrections have to 
be done by those who didn't create the errors in the first place.


DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Phillip Barnett]

And here is the email from the guy who did the original mapping, the last time 
this came up, including his reasoning for the amenity Tag rather than building 
tag https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017457.html

Sent from my iPhone

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 15:49, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> 
> 
> "OSM is not beholden to data consumers. 
> They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments
> 
> My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.  
> Upsetting CU isn't one"
> 
>  Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in a 
> lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplace
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:35, Dave F via Talk-GB  
>> wrote:
>> Hi Jerry
>> 
>> On 06/02/2020 10:19, SK53 wrote:
>> > Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
>> > month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this
>> > was clearly not the consensus.
>> 
>> It's detrimental to the quality of the OSM database. it requires sorting 
>> out.
>> 
>> > I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who run
>> > the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data
>> 
>> Is this their sole use? There was a hint in a university blog there were 
>> other sites
>> 
>> > , to warn them that a
>> > change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
>> > allow them to assess any impact on their map.
>> 
>> I was going to give it a week from my post to allow other OSM 
>> contributors to have their say. I don't want this to fizzle out as has 
>> happened on previous occasions. OSM is not beholden to data consumers. 
>> They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments.
>> 
>> My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.  
>> Upsetting CU isn't one.
>> 
>> >   Incidentally, knowing a
>> > specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
>> > beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always
>> > a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.
>> 
>> It depends how the institution is set up, but I've found bursar/estates 
>> departments are the more interested in the map's appearance. IT 
>> departments focus more on 0 & 1s.
>> 
>> > As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with former
>> > houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get
>> > building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other
>> > college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at
>> > all.
>> 
>> These are to assess what would bel eft after I make my planned amendment.
>> Note these are not all CU (ie Anglia Ruskin)
>> 
>> Buildings=yes, without amenity but have 'university' in the operator tag:
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsU
>> 
>> Buildings that aren't '=yes', without amenity but have 'university' in 
>> the operator tag:
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsT
>> 
>> Non building, amenity=university, Has 'University of Cambridge' in the 
>> operator tag
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt3
>> 
>> Non building, amenity=university, operator is not 'University of Cambridge'
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt1
>> 
>> Non building, amenity=university, No operator tag
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt4
>> 
>> > Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
>> > arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
>> > has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):
>> >
>> > - Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and
>> > are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't 
>> > know if
>> > we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training
>> > centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the 
>> > London
>> > Institute of Theology is tagged
>> >  as a college. Years ago I
>> > mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
>> > indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
>> > ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
>> >  of former
>> > times have similarly changed their roles.
>> > - Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and boathouses)
>> > are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged
>> > building=university, as is the sports centre.
>> > - Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right, 
>> > so
>> > probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although 
>> > the
>> > world is unlikely to end if not).
>> 
>> They maybe financially independent, but still stand under the umbrella 
>> of CU. Why can't they have separate college or faculty relations?
>> 
>> >   They mostly form discrete campuses.
>> > 

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Brian Prangle]

"OSM is not beholden to data consumers.
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments

My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.
Upsetting CU isn't one"

 Not a great way to build a community when the data user in question put in
a lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplac
e


On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:35, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> Hi Jerry
>
> On 06/02/2020 10:19, SK53 wrote:
> > Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
> > month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie,
> this
> > was clearly not the consensus.
>
> It's detrimental to the quality of the OSM database. it requires sorting
> out.
>
> > I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who
> run
> > the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data
>
> Is this their sole use? There was a hint in a university blog there were
> other sites
>
> > , to warn them that a
> > change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
> > allow them to assess any impact on their map.
>
> I was going to give it a week from my post to allow other OSM
> contributors to have their say. I don't want this to fizzle out as has
> happened on previous occasions. OSM is not beholden to data consumers.
> They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments.
>
> My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.
> Upsetting CU isn't one.
>
> >   Incidentally, knowing a
> > specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
> > beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is
> always
> > a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.
>
> It depends how the institution is set up, but I've found bursar/estates
> departments are the more interested in the map's appearance. IT
> departments focus more on 0 & 1s.
>
> > As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with
> former
> > houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get
> > building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other
> > college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at
> > all.
>
> These are to assess what would bel eft after I make my planned amendment.
> Note these are not all CU (ie Anglia Ruskin)
>
> Buildings=yes, without amenity but have 'university' in the operator tag:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsU
>
> Buildings that aren't '=yes', without amenity but have 'university' in
> the operator tag:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsT
>
> Non building, amenity=university, Has 'University of Cambridge' in the
> operator tag
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt3
>
> Non building, amenity=university, operator is not 'University of Cambridge'
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt1
>
> Non building, amenity=university, No operator tag
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt4
>
> > Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
> > arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
> > has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):
> >
> > - Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university,
> and
> > are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't
> know if
> > we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious
> training
> > centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the
> London
> > Institute of Theology is tagged
> >  as a college. Years
> ago I
> > mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
> > indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
> > ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
> >  of former
> > times have similarly changed their roles.
> > - Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and
> boathouses)
> > are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged
> > building=university, as is the sports centre.
> > - Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own
> right, so
> > probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although
> the
> > world is unlikely to end if not).
>
> They maybe financially independent, but still stand under the umbrella
> of CU. Why can't they have separate college or faculty relations?
>
> >   They mostly form discrete campuses.
> > Isolated parts are named separately so just replacing these with a
> relation
> > doesn't work. North Court, Emma is one such example. There are
> similarly
> > very well known parts of the university with their own widely used
> names:
> > Downing Site, New Museums, West Cambridge etc. This is true of most
> > universities now that many are 

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Hi Jerry

On 06/02/2020 10:19, SK53 wrote:

Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this
was clearly not the consensus.


It's detrimental to the quality of the OSM database. it requires sorting 
out.



I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who run
the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data


Is this their sole use? There was a hint in a university blog there were 
other sites



, to warn them that a
change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
allow them to assess any impact on their map.


I was going to give it a week from my post to allow other OSM 
contributors to have their say. I don't want this to fizzle out as has 
happened on previous occasions. OSM is not beholden to data consumers. 
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments.


My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason.  
Upsetting CU isn't one.



  Incidentally, knowing a
specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always
a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.


It depends how the institution is set up, but I've found bursar/estates 
departments are the more interested in the map's appearance. IT 
departments focus more on 0 & 1s.



As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with former
houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get
building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other
college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at
all.


These are to assess what would bel eft after I make my planned amendment.
Note these are not all CU (ie Anglia Ruskin)

Buildings=yes, without amenity but have 'university' in the operator tag:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsU

Buildings that aren't '=yes', without amenity but have 'university' in 
the operator tag:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsT

Non building, amenity=university, Has 'University of Cambridge' in the 
operator tag

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt3

Non building, amenity=university, operator is not 'University of Cambridge'
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt1

Non building, amenity=university, No operator tag
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt4


Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):

- Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and
are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't know if
we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training
centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the London
Institute of Theology is tagged
 as a college. Years ago I
mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
 of former
times have similarly changed their roles.
- Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and boathouses)
are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged
building=university, as is the sports centre.
- Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right, so
probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although the
world is unlikely to end if not).


They maybe financially independent, but still stand under the umbrella 
of CU. Why can't they have separate college or faculty relations?



  They mostly form discrete campuses.
Isolated parts are named separately so just replacing these with a relation
doesn't work. North Court, Emma is one such example. There are similarly
very well known parts of the university with their own widely used names:
Downing Site, New Museums, West Cambridge etc. This is true of most
universities now that many are multi-campus. I don't think we have a good
approach to these: roles in relations, campus_name … are all possibilities.
(This also applies to schools now that one academy can take over another).
- There's plenty of (non-public accessible) student accommodation which
is not mapped as such. I presume this is intentional. Examples the Trinity
staircase above the bike shop on Jesus Lane, most of Lower Park St (Jesus),
and Portugal Place,
-  Multiple buildings mapped as one
. There are probably
others, but this one I know. The larger part of the building is the
former Cambridgeshire
County Hall

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Jez Nicholson]

Nice work Jerry. I've touted Universities as a Quarterly Project as I
believe that a number of them use and contribute to OSM...and those that
don't, should. Maybe it can gain traction for next quarter...OSMUK could be
used as a means to introduce ourselves officially to any university that
doesn't know about OSM, but Cambridge are long-time contributors.

Remember to add information to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge

Meanwhile, the conversation has also jumped to the Tagging list and it
would be good to keep an eye on them.

Regards,
 Jez

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:21 AM SK53  wrote:

> Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
> month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this
> was clearly not the consensus.
>
> I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who
> run the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data, to warn them that
> a change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
> allow them to assess any impact on their map. Incidentally, knowing a
> specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
> beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always
> a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.
>
> As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with
> former houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes
> get building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are
> other college buildings of this type which are not hit by
> amenity=university at all.
>
> Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
> arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
> has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):
>
>- Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and
>are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't know if
>we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training
>centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the London
>Institute of Theology is tagged
> as a college. Years ago
>I mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
>indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
>ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
> of former
>times have similarly changed their roles.
>- Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and
>boathouses) are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often
>tagged building=university, as is the sports centre.
>- Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right,
>so probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although the
>world is unlikely to end if not). They mostly form discrete campuses.
>Isolated parts are named separately so just replacing these with a relation
>doesn't work. North Court, Emma is one such example. There are similarly
>very well known parts of the university with their own widely used names:
>Downing Site, New Museums, West Cambridge etc. This is true of most
>universities now that many are multi-campus. I don't think we have a good
>approach to these: roles in relations, campus_name … are all possibilities.
>(This also applies to schools now that one academy can take over another).
>- There's plenty of (non-public accessible) student accommodation
>which is not mapped as such. I presume this is intentional. Examples the
>Trinity staircase above the bike shop on Jesus Lane, most of Lower Park St
>(Jesus), and Portugal Place,
>-  Multiple buildings mapped as one
>. There are probably
>others, but this one I know. The larger part of the building is the former 
> Cambridgeshire
>County Hall
>
> ,
>built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century
>house
>
> 
>(formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single
>unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB 
> wrote:
>
>> On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
>> > Hi Dave,
>> >
>> > I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
>> > what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
>> > building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?
>>
>> That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
>> into JOSM:
>> [bbox:{{bbox}}];
>> 

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[SK53]

Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last
month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this
was clearly not the consensus.

I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who run
the map.cam.ac.uk site which consumes the OSM data, to warn them that a
change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to
allow them to assess any impact on their map. Incidentally, knowing a
specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big
beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always
a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.

As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with former
houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get
building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other
college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at
all.

Other general points I noticed relating to  inconsistency/issues (largely
arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just
has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):

   - Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and
   are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't know if
   we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training
   centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the London
   Institute of Theology is tagged
    as a college. Years ago I
   mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to
   indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the
   ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places
    of former
   times have similarly changed their roles.
   - Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and boathouses)
   are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged
   building=university, as is the sports centre.
   - Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right, so
   probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although the
   world is unlikely to end if not). They mostly form discrete campuses.
   Isolated parts are named separately so just replacing these with a relation
   doesn't work. North Court, Emma is one such example. There are similarly
   very well known parts of the university with their own widely used names:
   Downing Site, New Museums, West Cambridge etc. This is true of most
   universities now that many are multi-campus. I don't think we have a good
   approach to these: roles in relations, campus_name … are all possibilities.
   (This also applies to schools now that one academy can take over another).
   - There's plenty of (non-public accessible) student accommodation which
   is not mapped as such. I presume this is intentional. Examples the Trinity
   staircase above the bike shop on Jesus Lane, most of Lower Park St (Jesus),
   and Portugal Place,
   -  Multiple buildings mapped as one
   . There are probably
   others, but this one I know. The larger part of the building is the
former Cambridgeshire
   County Hall
   
,
   built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century house
   

   (formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single
   unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.

Cheers,

Jerry




On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB 
wrote:

> On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
> > what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
> > building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?
>
> That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query
> into JOSM:
> [bbox:{{bbox}}];
> nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
> out meta geom;
>
> plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.
>
> > (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> > if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> > relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
>
> There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
>
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH
>
> These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be
> rectified at a later date..
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
> > Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
> > :
> >> Hi
> >> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
> >>
> >> Many amenity=university 

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

 >On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 16:40:21 GMT, Andy Townsend  
wrote:      >   >On 04/02/2020 15:37, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:
  
 
    >>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
  
   >>IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area 
object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the >>university.  That would just be 
most of the city centre.    
   >>The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...   
...except that each college is probably in >several buildings and they may not 
be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of 
>buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations. 
  
   >... or, if the general feeling is to go ahead with this change, just add a 
node in the vicinity of the Senate House / St Mary's  >Church for it.  It'd be 
no less wrong. 
>By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in Cambridge:
 
>https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047
 
>Best Regards,
 
>Andy
 Yes, that indeed is fine, but then it is a single campus, which even a tourist 
could identify.  
The problem with THE Cambridge University  (as with Oxford,also) is that the 
colleges are all over the town and there is no campus.  Blame the founders in 
of the colleges in the thirteenth and fourteenth Centuries, who clearly gave no 
thought to the poor mappers in OSM.     

 
 ___
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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Paul Berry]

Indeed, so long as you ignore https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52528295,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/134635221, etc ;)

Feel free to adjust the mapping!

Regards,
*Paul*

> By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in
> Cambridge:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Russ Garrett]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 21:37, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> On a completely unrelated note. Does any software actually support site 
> relations?

openinframap.org does, for power plants (wind farms etc). I suspect it
may be the only one.

-- 
Russ Garrett
r...@garrett.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Alan Mackie]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Feb 4, 2020, 16:37 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:
>
> >> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> >> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> >> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
> >
> >There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
> IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area
> object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.
>
> Or multipolygon, like for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3830877
>
> The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...
>  ...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may
> not be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of
> buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.
>
> Or areas that belong to multipolygon of college and multipolygon of
> university (?)
>
> We used to enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American)
> tourists, who stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in
> with shops, offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the
> University.
>
> :) In this case university multipolygon (or closed way) covering most of
> city center
> sounds correct and would help OSM-using tourists.
> 
>

Isn't this what site relations are for? That way POI nodes etc also
belonging to the University can be included.

On a completely unrelated note. Does any software actually support site
relations?
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/02/2020 15:37, Peter Neale via Talk-GB wrote:

>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single 
area object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  That 
would just be most of the city centre.


The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation... 
 ...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they 
may not be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a 
relation of buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.



... or, if the general feeling is to go ahead with this change, just add 
a node in the vicinity of the Senate House / St Mary's Church for it.  
It'd be no less wrong.


By the way, there is at least one "sensibly mapped" university in Cambridge:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3987047

Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Feb 4, 2020, 16:37 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> >> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> >> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> >> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
> >
> >There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch
> IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area 
> object (do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  
>
Or multipolygon, like for https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3830877

> The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...   
> ...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may not 
> be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of 
> buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.
>
Or areas that belong to multipolygon of college and multipolygon of university 
(?)

> We used to enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American) 
> tourists, who stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in 
> with shops, offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the 
> University.
>
:) In this case university multipolygon (or closed way) covering most of city 
center 
sounds correct and would help OSM-using tourists.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB]

Feb 4, 2020, 15:14 by talk-gb@openstreetmap.org:

> Hi
> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>
> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance with 
> the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>
+1

I assume that individual buildings are not separate universities? I would expect
one area (maybe multipolygon) for one university.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

>> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
>> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
>> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)
>
>There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

IMHO, it would be a waste of time, if you tried to create a single area object 
(do I mean "closed way"?) to be the university.  That would just be most of the 
city centre.   
The University is a collection of colleges, so could be a relation...   
...except that each college is probably in several buildings and they may not 
be in a contiguous area, so each college might have to be a relation of 
buildings.  So you would have a hierarchy of relations.
Then, I assume that there will be some buildings that belong to the University, 
but not to any college.  That was certainly true of my Uni (it lies about 70 
miles West of Cambridge and is a darker blue), where the Engineering Building, 
Physics labs, Museum, Examination Halls were all University assets. We used to 
enjoy the look of puzzlement on the faces of (mostly American) tourists, who 
stood in the middle of town, surrounded by colleges, mixed in with shops, 
offices and other buildings, and asked which way to go to the University.
Regards,Peter

On Tuesday, 4 February 2020, 15:15:38 GMT, Dave F via Talk-GB 
 wrote:  
 
 On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
> what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
> building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?

That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query 
into JOSM:
[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;

plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.

> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)

There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH

These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be 
rectified at a later date..

Cheers
DaveF
> Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
> :
>> Hi
>> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>>
>> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
>> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
>> with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
>> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>>
>> The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
>> to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:

Hi Dave,

I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?


That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query 
into JOSM:

[bbox:{{bbox}}];
nwr[amenity=university][building=university];
out meta geom;

plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.


(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)


There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH

These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be 
rectified at a later date..


Cheers
DaveF

Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:

Hi
There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html

Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.

The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.

___
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] Still too many universities in Cambridge

[Dan S]

Hi Dave,

I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about
what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from
building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?

(Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see
if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a
relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)

Best
Dan

Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB
:
>
> Hi
> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html
>
> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes
> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance
> with the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767
> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.
>
> The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time
> to rectify.  I think this should be performed now.
>
> ___
> 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