"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 <https://osmuk.org/case-studies/mapping-a-distributed-campus-for-the-university-of-cambridge/>e On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:35, Dave F via Talk-GB <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> 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 > > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/524375396> 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 > > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.18591/-3.02706> 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 > > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147487988>. There are probably > > others, but this one I know. The larger part of the building is the > > former Cambridgeshire > > County Hall > > < > https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101265198-county-hall-cambridge#.Xjr8Fm52u01 > >, > > built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century > house > > < > https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101332167-christs-college-x-staircase-cambridge-market-ward#.Xjr7yG52u00 > > > > (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 < > talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> > > 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 > >>> <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. > >>>> > >>>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
