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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
>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
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:
>
>
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
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,
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
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
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
>> (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
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
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
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.
20 matches
Mail list logo
