Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

My vote would go to a format of ref:. Looking at the wiki for ref, a 
great many of the “” there are not things that can be ascertained 
from a ground survey, but are internal IDs or reference numbers. What I am 
proposing is therefore consistent with the wiki.

I’m not at all hung up on what  should be, though. “edubase” ought 
to feature in there somewhere, and while I am minded to add “uk” as well, none 
of the entries tabulated on the wiki seem to bother with the country name. So 
would someone care to pick one, or choose one of these suggestions:


  *   ref:edubase
  *   ref:edubase_urn
  *   ref:uk_edubase
  *   ref:uk_edubase_urn
  *   ref:school:edubase
  *   ref:school:edubase_urn

I think that my favourite is the first - it has the benefit of simplicity, and 
it is something that people are likely to be able to remember and therefore 
use. And in case anyone really doesn’t know what it is, “edubase” is readily 
google-able.

I would like to start adding these in / amending the tags that I already have, 
so if we could reach some consensus then that would be great. Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:06, SK53 > 
wrote:

Purely a personal preference, but I like to keep ref for thing which 
(generally) can be determined on a ground survey. I also like to keep separate 
genuine administrative references (such as the PRoW ones prow_ref, or minor 
roads admin_ref) separate from exposed system keys such as the edubase one.

For Food Hygiene (FHRS) data the equivalent internal identifier has converged 
on fhrs:id, but this was is in part because a number of other items of data 
from the Food Hygiene scheme have also been added within OSM. So I dont think 
this establishes any precedent for whether one has ref:supplier or supplier:ref 
or supplier_ref. Consistency would be nice but is not essential

If adding an edubase identifier, I'd also appreciate it if a FHRS one can be 
added too. These are certainly invariant, only changing when the premises 
change ownership. (I'm not sure what applies when school catering is 
outsourced, or if a school acquires academy status.

I must say I like the various suggestions for better micromapping of schools: 
this means that there is plenty to do even in well mapped areas. One thing I've 
always wanted to map, but have never noticed suitable tags, are the 
hard-surfaced school playgrounds. Clearly, using the existing 
leisure=playground is a poor idea as it changes the meaning of existing mapped 
objects; and also many primary schools will have a proper playground too.

Jerry

On 6 January 2016 at 12:42, Stuart Reynolds 
> 
wrote:
Hi Jez,

I was pondering that myself as I added the Edubase numbers to the schools that 
I have added and/or modified. I had two thoughts: one, we could just write a 
piece of free text such as “UK Edubase” in front of the ref; two, which is more 
elegant although involving non-standard tags, is that we tag it as 
ref:uk_edubase=* (or similar).

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:36, Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:

On the ref=*. Is there any convention for indicating that the ref is Edubase? 
I've tagged Brighton Montessori with ref=133348 ...but how would an interested 
party know that they would be able to find more details on Edubase 
http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=133348 ?

I agree that where an object is clearly 'owned' by an authority/company/etc. 
that it is *the* 'ref'. e.g. postbox numbers

Regards,
Jez

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 17:05 Stuart Reynolds 
> 
wrote:
I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea 
to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, 
to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed 
“do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
 *   amenity=school
 *   name=*
 *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
 *   at least one entrance=main
 *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools 
will have gates
 *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag 
building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people 
(like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a 
(readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project 
meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying 
(for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit those if 
I have time. But there are a surprising 

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Brian Prangle]

Many many thanks to Robert for coming up with this tool so quickly: it's
matching might be a bit rough but it's a great help in finding what needs
mapping where

regards

Brian

On 3 January 2016 at 18:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 January 2016 at 12:51, Brian Prangle  wrote:
> > Happy New Year! (and Happy New Mapping Year!) The first Quarterly Project
> > for 2016 is now under way and is Schools. There are really two strands to
> > this project.
> >
> > The first is to remotely (armchai)r map and get an increase in coverage
> of
> > the number of schools
> >
> > The latest government data is for January 2012 which shows 24,372
> schools in
> > England (including nursery schools, state-funded primary schools,
> > state-funded secondary schools, special schools, pupil referral units and
> > independent schools.)
>
> Since most of the code could be re-used from what I already do for
> Post Offices, I've put together a quick comparison tool to compare the
> Edubase data for England with what's currently in OSM:
> http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/schools/progress/
>
> It's a bit rough at the moment. I'm currently only using the data for
> England, and only fetching OSM *ways* tagged with amenity=school .
> There are no markers on the slippy map yet either, and the matching
> process is rather basic. With luck, I'll have some time to make some
> improvements in the next couple of weeks. In the mean time, the lists
> of non-matching items will hopefully still be useful to people.
>
> One caveat though -- I'm not completely sure that the Edubase data is
> (or should be) available under an OSM-compatible Licence (the OGL in
> this case). In particular the addresses and postcodes may be tainted
> by AddressBase. Until the licence is confirmed, we should avoid using
> Edubase data directly to add or edit Schools in OSM. There should be
> sufficient other sources available though.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert.
>
> --
> Robert Whittaker
>
> ___
> 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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Dave F.]

On 06/01/2016 14:06, SK53 wrote:
For Food Hygiene (FHRS) data the equivalent internal identifier has 
converged on fhrs:id, but this was is in part because a number of 
other items of data from the Food Hygiene scheme have also been added 
within OSM. So I dont think this establishes any precedent for whether 
one has ref:supplier or supplier:ref or supplier_ref. Consistency 
would be nice but is not essential


I thought fhrs:id was adopted because that format is used in The Food 
Standards Agency database. Keeping any such official references the same 
within OSM seems eminently sensible.


Dave F.

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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Stuart Reynolds]

Brilliant, thanks.

As per Rob's email of yesterday, should we also add ref:seedcode for Scotland? 

Cheers
Stuart


> On 7 Jan 2016, at 23:01, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
> 
>> On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle  wrote:
>> 
>> If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
>> probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
>> folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
>> consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.
> 
> Please see:
> 
>   
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects#Suggested_process_.26_tags
> 
> -- 
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

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

Re: [Talk-GB] "UKOSM" Aims draft 2

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi Brian

This is looking good.  

We don't seem to be covering "development" of the actual database in the 
context of increasing the amount of data in it with regard to the UK.  i.e. 
"improving the UK map".  I think it would be good to capture this as an aim but 
I'm not sure about how you would word this.  

Kind Regards

Dudley

Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:25:11 +
From: bpran...@gmail.com
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-GB] "UKOSM" Aims draft 2

Hi  everyone

Thanks to those who commented on Draft 1  in a previous  thread. 

I've  redrafted to:



1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap
community in the UK.

2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by
organisations in the UK.

3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of OpenData  
that is suitable
for use in OpenStreetMap. 



Activities and services to achieve these aims can go in
separately in the remainder of the document subsequently, as can how we define 
the UK to include territories such as Channel
Is, IoM etc. 
Look forward to your comments and draft 3!
BTW next concall scheduled for Wed Jan 27 at 8pm - same no and passcode. I'll 
issue these again nearer the date as a reminder

Regards
Brian





___
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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Brian Prangle]

If no-one objects to ref:edubase can someone add it to the wiki?  We should
probably also add some other  stuff that's come up just in case there are
folk who are not on this mailing list who want to discover what the
consensus is in the UK for mapping schools.

Also I'm finding that frequently I'm adding  names to pre-existing school
polygons. Could Rob's progress tool also count schools with names?

Currently taginfo reports of 27149 schools only 20818 have names ( 76.68%)

Regards

Brian

On 7 January 2016 at 20:11, Rob Nickerson  wrote:

> I second Stuart & Brian on the use of:
>
> *ref:edubase*
>
> If at some later point somebody has a good reason to use something else it
> would only take a few minutes to edit the tag. As such I'd go for it and
> start adding it to schools.
>
> *Rob*
>
> ___
> 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] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

[Rob Nickerson]

Not my tool - I just have a version of it running. Adam has provided me an
updated version that I need to look at this weekend. I can see if I can add
such a percentage tracker at the same time. For now you'll just have to
keep looking at the taginfo page:

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/amenity=school#combinations

*Rob*

On 7 January 2016 at 20:48, Brian Prangle  wrote:

>
> Also I'm finding that frequently I'm adding  names to pre-existing school
> polygons. Could Rob's progress tool also count schools with names?
>
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb