Re: [Talk-GB] [Imports] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Edward Betts]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> I have started some time ago to add wikidata tags manually myself and have
> found that there are a few problems to be careful about. Will you be
> checking the matches you have found to see if there would be contradictions
> between single wikidata statements and current OSM tags, that will require
> reorganization of either the OSM object or the wikidata object? "Partial"
> matches are not so uncommon, e.g. you could have a wikidata object
> referring to a museum and an OSM object referring to the building housing
> the museum (or the other way round).

My code tries to resolve duplicates, it can't it will skip the OSM object. My
aim is to generate a one-to-one mapping, I only add a tag for a wikidata item
to a single OSM object.

I've written some heuristic for different cases. For settlements where there
is a node and polygon (way or relation) I prefer the node.

Hospitals and schools are sometimes tagged with a polygon for each building
and a surrounding polygon for the site. In this case the matcher picks the
surrounding site polygon.

-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-gb-westmidlands] [Imports] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Edward Betts]

Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> I have started some time ago to add wikidata tags manually myself and have
> found that there are a few problems to be careful about. Will you be
> checking the matches you have found to see if there would be contradictions
> between single wikidata statements and current OSM tags, that will require
> reorganization of either the OSM object or the wikidata object? "Partial"
> matches are not so uncommon, e.g. you could have a wikidata object
> referring to a museum and an OSM object referring to the building housing
> the museum (or the other way round).

My code tries to resolve duplicates, it can't it will skip the OSM object. My
aim is to generate a one-to-one mapping, I only add a tag for a wikidata item
to a single OSM object.

I've written some heuristic for different cases. For settlements where there
is a node and polygon (way or relation) I prefer the node.

Hospitals and schools are sometimes tagged with a polygon for each building
and a surrounding polygon for the site. In this case the matcher picks the
surrounding site polygon.

-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Administrative boundaries: polygons or polylines?

[Colin Smale]

Hi Bob, 

They all seem to be made up of multiple ways. I noticed that Bix and
Assendon has role=outer consistently applied, whereas the others have no
explicit role on the ways. This is implicitly equivalent to role=outer
but having explicit roles for the members in a relation may be
considered "best practice". 

I don't know which software you are using which identifies them as
"polygon" or "polyline", but is it possibly related to the order of the
ways in the relation? I am thinking that if the ways are listed in the
"right" order and can be linked together head-to-tail without
re-ordering the ways or reversing the nodes, it might be identified as a
simple polygon, whereas if the ways need re-ordering or reversing to
make a complete ring then the software may just say "it's a list of
lines i.e. a polyline". 

I will take a closer look at the relations you mentioned to see if that
may be the case, but I assume you realise that OSM doesn't "do" polygons
as a native data type, and allows the members of a multipolygon (and by
implication, boundary) relation to be in any order... When lines are
shared between boundaries of adjacent areas, it is not topologically
possible to have them in the perfect order in all the relations at the
same time.

Best regards, 

Colin 

On 2016-01-17 19:12, Bob Hawkins wrote:

> Colin 
> I thank you for your prompt reply. 
> I have been investigating further in the meantime to try to establish what 
> makes a difference.  I wondered if it lay with "type=boundary" or its absence 
> but my relations I have checked all have type=boundary.  I wonder if you have 
> time to look at South Oxfordshire around Henley-on-Thames, say.  Bix and 
> Assendon civil parish shows as a polygon; adjacent Nettlebed, Highmoor and 
> Rotherfield Greys do not, yet have type=boundary in their relations.  Your 
> experience with administrative boundaries in OSM might make it easier to spot 
> the issue. 
> 
> [1]
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
> www.avast.com [1]
 

Links:
--
[1]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=emailutm_source=linkutm_campaign=sig-emailutm_content=emailclient___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Stuart Reynolds]

Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools which are 
now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.


You should use the site relation for this. I was doing this for a lower and 
upper school in Southend, until I realised that the lower school had closed at 
the end of the last school year and so removed it. The only issue is that I had 
tagged the site relation with the edubase number and the school name, and it 
isn’t picked up by the matching algorithm - but that isn’t to say that it isn’t 
right.

Regards,
Stuart


Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia



On 17 Jan 2016, at 13:46, Colin Spiller 
> wrote:

Here in West Yorkshire, I have a newly-rebuilt Beckfoot School, sharing the 
site and facilities with Hazelbeck Special School. As far as I know, there 
isn't anything dividing the two. Robert has these entries for them (thanks 
Robert - great job!):

139975  BD16 
1EE   
Beckfoot School

139977  BD16 
1EE   
Hazelbeck Special School

They do have their own websites: http://www.beckfoot.org/ and 
http://www.hazelbeck.org/ !

Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools which are 
now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.

Any recommendations as to how I should map these two extremes gratefully 
received!
Thanks
Colin, West Yorks


On 17/01/16 13:14, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/01/16 12:40, Dave F. wrote:


Although I'm uncertain of a perfect solution as both the entrance and
recreation ground appears to be shared in Ed's example, I find there's
usually a defining boundary around schools that are adjacent to each
other. Especially infant schools where they don't want the little ones
wandering off. Looking at the site using a website that shall not be
mentioned, it appears to use a fence & the school building itself as the
barrier. On ground conformation will, of course, be required.


Situations where a school has a secure play area which is used by
Nursary and first school pupils at different times is not unusual,
especially now the 'Nursery' provision for younger children is being
added around the country. Ideally for us this would just extend the
range of an existing school, but there seems to be financial advantages
in creating a separate 'school'? Yes closer inspection may produce
different results, but to get the key data in now would be nice, and it
can be refined later?



As mapped ATM both the fhrs:id & ref:edubase tags aren't associated with
amenity=school which is not ideal for filtering data.


Proper quoting would have included this comment in with mine about
whether amenity=school was appropriate on the outer boundary when it is
difficult to separate multiple edubase refs inside the area. Just as
there are a number of ways off adding 'school' to an item, there may be
a case for 'landuse=school' where one is then going to add
'amenity=school' to the internal elements? Be that simple nodes for each
occupant of a high rise building, or the primary building of each where
several other buildings and play areas are shared during the day.

For filtering data I think that 'amenity=school' makes sense when linked
with all the primary data for each school, which ever country is looked
at, so some means of identifying the landuse for a multiple school area
is the logical follow through. I'm very tempted at the moment to simply
remove the Evesham boundary 'amenity=school' tag and replace it with on
on each primary building which will at least allow the current
verification to cross them off the list. What ever way things are
progressed, something needs to be changed.

( And in relation to mass adding wikidata tags to the CURRENT school
references, this is premature since in many cases the wrong area is tagged )





--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.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

[Talk-GB] Abbreviations in OSM and schools

[Ed Loach]

So, should we be using the full school name or abbreviating 'church of
england voluntary aided' to CEVA as they do on the school pullovers?
Similar questions for other variations - I've seen CE, CoE, C of E for
example.

I've been leaving existing names in the main (occasionally adding VC or VA)
in the hope these are from surveys and are what are on the sign, but some
names are sourced from fhrs or even os opendata. Is the DfE name better in
these cases?

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Two schools on the same site

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 20:34, Neil McManus wrote:
> It seems I am not the only one with this problem. I too have been
> contributing to the quarterly project by adding a few more schools in
> West Lothian and have come across a problem where two schools share the
> same building.  They have a few sites where catholic and
> non-denominational school share the location.
> 
> How should I tag this in OSM?  For now I put both names in the tag like
> 'amenity=school' , 'name=school 1 / school 2', but this doesn't seem right.
> e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/55.95730/-3.46847
> After adding it with both names as above, I checked that a search for
> school 1 works, but school 2 does not.

I've been lucky so far in that the two or three schools can be
identified even if the exact area each uses will require an on site
survey. If the information is not available, then I would in yur case
simply add two nodes with the name, ref:edubase, and amenity=school,
inside the area tagged amenity=school ... the verifier will complain,
but the facts are cleanly available and the only error reported would be
'no name on boundary amenity' ... but both schools will be listed and
can be crossed off. Getting the schools to provide the fine detail would
then be the follow up.

-- 
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] Administrative boundaries: polygons or polylines?

[Colin Smale]

Bob, 

Glad to be of assistance. 

One tiny word of warning when you add role=outer: please make sure you
do it to ALL the ways (without a role) in a relation, because a mix of
empty roles and role=outer in the same relation will definitely cause
more problems than simply having empty roles! 

You may be interested in my page where I have consolidated my notes on
UK admin boundaries in OSM:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries

Best regards, 

Colin 

On 2016-01-17 19:59, Bob Hawkins wrote:

> Colin 
> The answer might lie with role=outer.  I applied it to Nettlebed in JOSM as a 
> test, uploaded the change and ran a new query in Overpass turbo.  Nettlebed 
> appears as a polygon now.  It seems I should apply it to all my cases for 
> best practice, as you write, because it does appear other software might be 
> adversely affected by its absence. 
> I thank you for your constructive input. 
> 
> With regards 
> Bob 
> 
> [1]
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
> www.avast.com [1]
 

Links:
--
[1]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=emailutm_source=linkutm_campaign=sig-emailutm_content=emailclient___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 18:17, Edward Betts wrote:
> Wikipedia has an article about a village called Brailes, but OSM has nodes for
> two villages, Upper Brailes and Lower Brailes. The matcher solves this problem
> by picking the civil parish.

Helps if you answer ;)
This is actually one of the sites I had fun with when looking at
'missing villages', and since both Upper and Lower Brailes appear in the
Local Government directory, then there needs to be two separate nodes.
That wikipedia merges them is not our problem, so while both villages
have to reference the same wikipedia/wikidata page, it is not the right
answer especially since there are separate figures for the two villages
which one would EXPECT wikidata to document?

-- 
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-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Edward Betts]

Lester Caine  wrote:
> If there is not a node for a village in the OSM data, then it needs
> adding. While wikipedia may return the same page for the village and the
> matching parish, I thought that wikidata should distinguish between a
> village record and a parish one?

For now Wikidata tends to be similar to Wikipedia. There is a single Wikipedia
article that describes both a civil parish and village, so the same is true on
Wikidata. Over time Wikidata might start adding extra items for the civil
parish. This is happening already in Germany.

Wikipedia has an article about a village called Brailes, but OSM has nodes for
two villages, Upper Brailes and Lower Brailes. The matcher solves this problem
by picking the civil parish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brailes
http://wikidata.org/wiki/Q2155031
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2863394

Another example: Upton Snodsbury in Wikipedia is called Upper Snodsbury in
OSM, so the matcher picks the civil parish. There is a note on the Upper
Snodsbury node that suggesting that the name might be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Snodsbury
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1875319

-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Andy Robinson]

I've no idea if it does but it sure feels like Northwich Hartford Campus takes 
the biscuit with respect to shared resource. 6 schools plus the college 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/53.2475/-2.5302. I have some cleaning up 
and more work to do on it which I'm leaving until I've done a ground survey.

My feeling is that where the whole area is owned by the local authority then 
it's appropriate to mark the whole area as one entity as amenity=school and 
then place the individual school info on the relevant school building.

Cheers
Andy

-Original Message-
From: Steve Doerr [mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 17:28
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one 
site

On 17/01/2016 13:14, Lester Caine wrote:

> Situations where a school has a secure play area which is used by 
> Nursary and first school pupils at different times is not unusual

One possible approach is simply to draw each school's boundary so as to include 
the shared area (i.e. overlapping). If that's not possible, then it implies 
that the shared area really 'belongs' to one of the schools and the other one 
merely 'borrows' it at certain times.

--
Steve

---
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


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 17:28, Steve Doerr wrote:
> One possible approach is simply to draw each school's boundary so as to
> include the shared area (i.e. overlapping). If that's not possible, then
> it implies that the shared area really 'belongs' to one of the schools
> and the other one merely 'borrows' it at certain times.

Like Andy, I do feel that the whole area is 'amenity=school' and while
the government seems to be planning to sell off any land, on the whole,
the council owns the land and their schools use it as required. The
shared facilities do not belong to one school or another, and certainly
the ones I have personal knowledge off do not have parking areas
segregated to one or other building so there is not a 'shaded area' at all?

-- 
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] Abbreviations in OSM and schools

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 20:42, Ed Loach wrote:
> So, should we be using the full school name or abbreviating 'church of
> england voluntary aided' to CEVA as they do on the school pullovers?
> Similar questions for other variations - I've seen CE, CoE, C of E for
> example.

I've been changing them to match what is listed on edubase for the main
name, and retaining an alt_name sometimes.

> I've been leaving existing names in the main (occasionally adding VC or
> VA) in the hope these are from surveys and are what are on the sign, but
> some names are sourced from fhrs or even os opendata. Is the DfE name
> better in these cases?

The one thing I've been adding is the schools website where available.
That often uses a different name to either of the format used on edubase
or originally, so just what is right? Since the edubase name equates to
the 'registered' name that should be taken as official, and many of the
missing schools simply have a large discrepancy in names, but which any
human would understand as matching ;)

-- 
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] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Edward Betts]

Lester Caine  wrote:
> If there is not a node for a village in the OSM data, then it needs
> adding. While wikipedia may return the same page for the village and the
> matching parish, I thought that wikidata should distinguish between a
> village record and a parish one?

For now Wikidata tends to be similar to Wikipedia. There is a single Wikipedia
article that describes both a civil parish and village, so the same is true on
Wikidata. Over time Wikidata might start adding extra items for the civil
parish. This is happening already in Germany.

Wikipedia has an article about a village called Brailes, but OSM has nodes for
two villages, Upper Brailes and Lower Brailes. The matcher solves this problem
by picking the civil parish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brailes
http://wikidata.org/wiki/Q2155031
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2863394

Another example: Upton Snodsbury in Wikipedia is called Upper Snodsbury in
OSM, so the matcher picks the civil parish. There is a note on the Upper
Snodsbury node that suggesting that the name might be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Snodsbury
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1875319

-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Administrative boundaries: polygons or polylines?

[Bob Hawkins]

Colin
The answer might lie with role=outer.  I applied it to Nettlebed in JOSM as a 
test, uploaded the change and ran a new query in Overpass turbo.  Nettlebed 
appears as a polygon now.  It seems I should apply it to all my cases for best 
practice, as you write, because it does appear other software might be 
adversely affected by its absence.
I thank you for your constructive input.
With regards
Bob

---
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] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 18:17, Edward Betts wrote:
> Wikipedia has an article about a village called Brailes, but OSM has nodes for
> two villages, Upper Brailes and Lower Brailes. The matcher solves this problem
> by picking the civil parish.


-- 
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] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 17:06, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>> Please remove the School list from this. We are currently adding the
>> > edubase references to each of these, and this will replace the need for
>> > an additional wikidata tag. Better to just have the one primary reference.
> There is no restriction limiting us to add only one identifier, and no
> harm done by adding both. In particular, the EduBase ID does not
> "remove the need" to add a Wikidata ID.

I've no objection once the correct objects are tagged for each school,
but many of the ones being automatically tagged ALSO need updating to an
alternative object. Lets get one tidy finished before then looking for
other? Adding all of these just adds to the work tidying the basic objects.

-- 
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

[Talk-GB] Two schools on the same site

[Neil McManus]

Hi,

It seems I am not the only one with this problem. I too have been 
contributing to the quarterly project by adding a few more schools in 
West Lothian and have come across a problem where two schools share the 
same building.  They have a few sites where catholic and 
non-denominational school share the location.


How should I tag this in OSM?  For now I put both names in the tag like 
'amenity=school' , 'name=school 1 / school 2', but this doesn't seem right.

e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/55.95730/-3.46847
After adding it with both names as above, I checked that a search for 
school 1 works, but school 2 does not.


Thanks,

Neil
(Hobgoblin)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Ed Loach]

 On 17/01/16 00:08, alasd...@dunakin.me.uk wrote:
> I'd like some advice please on how to tag 2 Schools that use the
> one site.

Lester replied:
> What I've done initially is tagged the buildings of each part with the
> correct name and ref:edubase tag, and not put a tag on the site
> boundary. This I think will throw errors on the progress page, but in
> some cases the sites have a public name ... such as Abbey Park
> Schools
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36626132, but the sites
> in
> Evesham I don't think make the distinction, with in one case 5
> separate
> edubase establishments across two sites. Not sure what to do there,
> but
> tagging the building has to be correct, and the lack of a site name is
> not a problem! So should not be flagged as an error.

I was working through some schools last night and found this example:
http://osm.org/go/0EHYuEbV1--?m=
in Wivenhoe. Already well mapped in my opinion with the fhrs:id already on each 
school's building, so I just added ref:edubase to each building too. In this 
situation the amenity=school tag is on the site with the individual schools 
within the sites having the tags that apply to them (but not an additional 
amenity=school tag). 

There are a few more examples in Colchester where neither school is currently 
mapped where I've added a note that a survey is required to see if they can be 
distinguished, or whether they might need to end up as two nodes in the same 
building even.

Ed


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Dave F.]

Although I'm uncertain of a perfect solution as both the entrance and 
recreation ground appears to be shared in Ed's example, I find there's 
usually a defining boundary around schools that are adjacent to each 
other. Especially infant schools where they don't want the little ones 
wandering off. Looking at the site using a website that shall not be 
mentioned, it appears to use a fence & the school building itself as the 
barrier. On ground conformation will, of course, be required.


As mapped ATM both the fhrs:id & ref:edubase tags aren't associated with 
amenity=school which is not ideal for filtering data.


Dave F.

On 17/01/2016 11:29, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/01/16 09:48, Ed Loach wrote:

I'd like some advice please on how to tag 2 Schools that use the

one site.

Lester replied:

What I've done initially is tagged the buildings of each part with the
correct name and ref:edubase tag, and not put a tag on the site
boundary. This I think will throw errors on the progress page, but in
some cases the sites have a public name ... such as Abbey Park
Schools
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36626132, but the sites
in
Evesham I don't think make the distinction, with in one case 5
separate
edubase establishments across two sites. Not sure what to do there,
but
tagging the building has to be correct, and the lack of a site name is
not a problem! So should not be flagged as an error.

I was working through some schools last night and found this example:
http://osm.org/go/0EHYuEbV1--?m=
in Wivenhoe. Already well mapped in my opinion with the fhrs:id already on each 
school's building, so I just added ref:edubase to each building too. In this 
situation the amenity=school tag is on the site with the individual schools 
within the sites having the tags that apply to them (but not an additional 
amenity=school tag).

There are a few more examples in Colchester where neither school is currently 
mapped where I've added a note that a survey is required to see if they can be 
distinguished, or whether they might need to end up as two nodes in the same 
building even.

I was cogitating over night as to whether in the case of multiple
establishments it should be the outer boundary that has the 'amenity'
tag or the indivitual buildings, or as you flag up, nodes within a
single building.

If the building is multi-story, with different establishments on each
floor, then current rules almost force a separate node 'on-the-top' for
each, and amenity=school on the building if there is no outside ground
involved?

It would be nice if we can define a rule which allows any data mining to
correctly pick out the multiple tags? So if there is no ref:edubase on
the amenity=school boundary, then there are multiple ref:edubase tags
within the area each with it's own name tag. This allows the area to
have a name which may not actually appear in edubase.

The one that irritates me a little more is the way establishments like
Pershore College - which used to be one of the premier horticultural
establishments - is now just a campus of a larger group of colleges some
of which do not seem to have their own edubase reference. Not sure as
yet if the 'Pershore Group of Colleges' listed is actually 'Pershore
College' and I've currently added that as an alternate name. It is
perhaps too much to expect that the edubase would correctly identify
every location ... I have a similar problem with a couple of 'Federated
Schools' in the area where teaching takes place in two villages, but
there is no actual address listed for the 'satellite', and even from
their own websites no directions to it :(

For my own reference
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/391197329 - no postal address
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239765335 - not sure if school is open




---
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] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 12:40, Dave F. wrote:
> Although I'm uncertain of a perfect solution as both the entrance and
> recreation ground appears to be shared in Ed's example, I find there's
> usually a defining boundary around schools that are adjacent to each
> other. Especially infant schools where they don't want the little ones
> wandering off. Looking at the site using a website that shall not be
> mentioned, it appears to use a fence & the school building itself as the
> barrier. On ground conformation will, of course, be required.

Situations where a school has a secure play area which is used by
Nursary and first school pupils at different times is not unusual,
especially now the 'Nursery' provision for younger children is being
added around the country. Ideally for us this would just extend the
range of an existing school, but there seems to be financial advantages
in creating a separate 'school'? Yes closer inspection may produce
different results, but to get the key data in now would be nice, and it
can be refined later?

> As mapped ATM both the fhrs:id & ref:edubase tags aren't associated with
> amenity=school which is not ideal for filtering data.

Proper quoting would have included this comment in with mine about
whether amenity=school was appropriate on the outer boundary when it is
difficult to separate multiple edubase refs inside the area. Just as
there are a number of ways off adding 'school' to an item, there may be
a case for 'landuse=school' where one is then going to add
'amenity=school' to the internal elements? Be that simple nodes for each
occupant of a high rise building, or the primary building of each where
several other buildings and play areas are shared during the day.

For filtering data I think that 'amenity=school' makes sense when linked
with all the primary data for each school, which ever country is looked
at, so some means of identifying the landuse for a multiple school area
is the logical follow through. I'm very tempted at the moment to simply
remove the Evesham boundary 'amenity=school' tag and replace it with on
on each primary building which will at least allow the current
verification to cross them off the list. What ever way things are
progressed, something needs to be changed.

( And in relation to mass adding wikidata tags to the CURRENT school
references, this is premature since in many cases the wrong area is tagged )

-- 
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-westmidlands] [Talk-GB] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Edward Betts]

Lester Caine  wrote:
> On 17/01/16 11:08, Edward Betts wrote:
> > This is the list of Wikidata tags that I actually plan to add:
> > 
> > https://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/west_midlands/matches_2016-01-16.txt
> 
> Please remove the School list from this. We are currently adding the
> edubase references to each of these, and this will replace the need for
> an additional wikidata tag. Better to just have the one primary reference.

I can skip the Schools category, if that's the community consensus. 

> There are also suspicious duplicates through the Towns and Villages
> lists, and certainly where I've been adding a wikipedia link for a town
> in a number of cases it is the wikipedia end which was wrong. Two
> wikidata tags for Warwick?

Thanks for spotting the Warwick mistake. Q549761 is the town, Q611294 is the
local government district. I'll check to make sure there are no other
duplicates like this.

> And there should be individual nodes for each village so not sure where the
> relations come from?

The villages matching relations are the civil parishes. The Wikidata item
represents both the village and the civil parish. This happens when the
matching algorithm can't find the appropriate village node.

I can change the code so that towns and villages only match nodes.
-- 
Edward.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Colin Spiller]

Here in West Yorkshire, I have a newly-rebuilt Beckfoot School, sharing 
the site and facilities with Hazelbeck Special School. As far as I know, 
there isn't anything dividing the two. Robert has these entries for them 
(thanks Robert - great job!):


139975 	BD16 1EE 
 
Beckfoot School



139977 	BD16 1EE 
 
Hazelbeck Special School



They do have their own websites: http://www.beckfoot.org/ and 
http://www.hazelbeck.org/ !


Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools 
which are now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.


Any recommendations as to how I should map these two extremes gratefully 
received!

Thanks
Colin, West Yorks


On 17/01/16 13:14, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/01/16 12:40, Dave F. wrote:

Although I'm uncertain of a perfect solution as both the entrance and
recreation ground appears to be shared in Ed's example, I find there's
usually a defining boundary around schools that are adjacent to each
other. Especially infant schools where they don't want the little ones
wandering off. Looking at the site using a website that shall not be
mentioned, it appears to use a fence & the school building itself as the
barrier. On ground conformation will, of course, be required.

Situations where a school has a secure play area which is used by
Nursary and first school pupils at different times is not unusual,
especially now the 'Nursery' provision for younger children is being
added around the country. Ideally for us this would just extend the
range of an existing school, but there seems to be financial advantages
in creating a separate 'school'? Yes closer inspection may produce
different results, but to get the key data in now would be nice, and it
can be refined later?


As mapped ATM both the fhrs:id & ref:edubase tags aren't associated with
amenity=school which is not ideal for filtering data.

Proper quoting would have included this comment in with mine about
whether amenity=school was appropriate on the outer boundary when it is
difficult to separate multiple edubase refs inside the area. Just as
there are a number of ways off adding 'school' to an item, there may be
a case for 'landuse=school' where one is then going to add
'amenity=school' to the internal elements? Be that simple nodes for each
occupant of a high rise building, or the primary building of each where
several other buildings and play areas are shared during the day.

For filtering data I think that 'amenity=school' makes sense when linked
with all the primary data for each school, which ever country is looked
at, so some means of identifying the landuse for a multiple school area
is the logical follow through. I'm very tempted at the moment to simply
remove the Evesham boundary 'amenity=school' tag and replace it with on
on each primary building which will at least allow the current
verification to cross them off the list. What ever way things are
progressed, something needs to be changed.

( And in relation to mass adding wikidata tags to the CURRENT school
references, this is premature since in many cases the wrong area is tagged )




--
Colin Spiller
co...@thespillers.org.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project : Schools - Multiple Schools on one site

[Dave F.]

On 17/01/2016 13:46, Colin Spiller wrote:
Here in West Yorkshire, I have a newly-rebuilt Beckfoot School, 
sharing the site and facilities with Hazelbeck Special School. As far 
as I know, there isn't anything dividing the two. 


I'd be /very/ surprised if there wasn't a protect barrier around a 
special school.




Also nearby there are what used to be two separate single-sex schools 
which are now combined as a mixed school. Two sites about a mile apart.


Do they have separate fhrs:id & ref:edubase?

I've used 'operator' to combine schools which are separated by distance 
& names (Junior, senior; upper, lower etc).


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] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Lester Caine]

On 17/01/16 13:36, Edward Betts wrote:
>> And there should be individual nodes for each village so not sure where the
>> > relations come from?
> The villages matching relations are the civil parishes. The Wikidata item
> represents both the village and the civil parish. This happens when the
> matching algorithm can't find the appropriate village node.
> 
> I can change the code so that towns and villages only match nodes.

If there is not a node for a village in the OSM data, then it needs
adding. While wikipedia may return the same page for the village and the
matching parish, I thought that wikidata should distinguish between a
village record and a parish one? A search for a city, town, village,
hamlet should return a node with the key data located at an appropriate
location in the place. A search for the parish should return the
boundary, but coverage around the UK for parishes is sporadic?

-- 
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] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Andy Mabbett]

On 17 January 2016 at 12:55, Lester Caine  wrote:

> Please remove the School list from this. We are currently adding the
> edubase references to each of these, and this will replace the need for
> an additional wikidata tag. Better to just have the one primary reference.

There is no restriction limiting us to add only one identifier, and no
harm done by adding both. In particular, the EduBase ID does not
"remove the need" to add a Wikidata ID.

-- 
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] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Colin Smale]

I am working hard (manual labour!) on the OSM coverage of Civil
Parishes, but they will never cover 100% of England due to large swathes
being unparished. Don't forget to distinguish between Civil and
Ecclesiastical parishes - they have been steadily diverging for over 100
years... 

//colin

On 2016-01-17 17:38, Lester Caine wrote:

> On 17/01/16 13:36, Edward Betts wrote: And there should be individual nodes 
> for each village so not sure where the relations come from?
 The villages matching relations are the civil parishes. The Wikidata
item
represents both the village and the civil parish. This happens when the
matching algorithm can't find the appropriate village node.

I can change the code so that towns and villages only match nodes. 
If there is not a node for a village in the OSM data, then it needs
adding. While wikipedia may return the same page for the village and the
matching parish, I thought that wikidata should distinguish between a
village record and a parish one? A search for a city, town, village,
hamlet should return a node with the key data located at an appropriate
location in the place. A search for the parish should return the
boundary, but coverage around the UK for parishes is sporadic? ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Review plan for adding 1, 164 wikidata tags in the West Midlands

[Steve Doerr]

On 17/01/2016 12:55, Lester Caine wrote:

On 17/01/16 11:08, Edward Betts wrote:

This is the list of Wikidata tags that I actually plan to add:

https://edwardbetts.com/osm-wikidata/west_midlands/matches_2016-01-16.txt

Please remove the School list from this. We are currently adding the
edubase references to each of these, and this will replace the need for
an additional wikidata tag. Better to just have the one primary reference.



-1

Leaving aside any arguments over whether we should have Wikidata links 
at all, it seems a bit ludicrous to exempt one specific category of 
objects in one specific country simply because that country has its own 
local referencing system for that kind of object. If anything, Wikidata 
should take precedence as it is worldwide and not confined to a single 
category of objects. Having both references could provide the 
opportunity for cross-validation in the future, if EDUBASE numbers are 
added to Wikidata (or vice versa).


--
Steve

---
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] Administrative boundaries: polygons or polylines?

[Colin Smale]

Hi Bob, 

I have been doing a lot of work looking after admin boundaries in the UK
in the last few years, including adding many thousands of Civil Parish
relations. 

Admin boundaries are represented by relations with type=boundary.
Syntactically these are similar to multipolygons, whereby the (one or
more) "way" members have to link up to make (inner or outer) polygons.
Even an isolated parish (an island for example) which only needs a
single way to represent its entire border, would still have a boundary
relation in OSM.

How are you distinguishing between boundaries as polygons and boundaries
as polylines? 

//colin 

On 2016-01-17 18:30, Bob Hawkins wrote:

> While running an Overpass turbo query recently I noticed a mixture of polygon 
> and polyline admin_level 10, civil parishes in South Oxfordshire within the 
> bounding box, but mostly polylines.  Its neighbour, South Buckinghamshire, 
> appears to contain civil parish polygons.  I checked other, random parts of 
> the country.  Canterbury, Crewe, Norwich and Plymouth areas comprised 
> polygons.  I did find Kingston upon Hull area, probably created by Chris 
> Hill, comprised polylines.  I was responsible for work on admin_level 10 
> boundaries within South Oxfordshire four years ago and creating a relation 
> for each one (Chris gave me much advice and assistance to help me carry out 
> these tasks).  The relation alone can be the polygon, it seems to me, for an 
> administrative boundary comprises many lines because they are shared with 
> adjacent boundaries and because of other unassociated coincident tags. 
> I am interested to know the following: 
> how Overpass turbo distinguishes the two types 
> which type civil parishes should be and whether the same applies to all 
> administrative levels 
> how an administrative boundary is determined to be a polygon or polyline and 
> is created in the first instance, how this is seen in JOSM, for example, and 
> how to change from one to another, assuming civil parishes should be 
> polygons, based on the majority I have seen 
> I appreciate spatial queries such as "admin_level 7 contains admin_level 10" 
> or "prow_ref [tagged Public Rights of Way] within admin_level 10", for 
> example, would require those boundaries to be polygons.  In this regard, is 
> it possible to carry out such spatial queries in Overpass turbo? 
> 
> [1]
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. 
> www.avast.com [1] 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 

Links:
--
[1]
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=emailutm_source=linkutm_campaign=sig-emailutm_content=emailclient___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb