A quick scan of Oxford shows the colleges (and a few multi-building areas such as the Science Area) as amenity=university, with buildings within colleges and odd departments as building=university. So we have a lot of universities too.
Other big difference is that we haven't generally added "(University of Oxford)" to the end of all the college names... I'd tend to go for amenity=university for a contiguous site with a single name, with the occasional split site (eg on two sides of a public road) as a multi-polygon. Then I'd add a *tag* to show that the site was part of a collection making up the University (probably operator, though that feels wrong, since the colleges are independent entities). It's *not* a candidate for a relation because there are no geographical relationships between the components. Richard On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Yes, Philip's right - I developed and continue to maintain the University > map at http://map.cam.ac.uk (as well as doing all of the original street > pattern mapping for Cambridge back in 2006). The University has put a > considerable investment and negotiated permission for college access into > the map and contributed tens of thousands of pounds of survey data into OSM > - it's not just "some of its maps", it's completely central to the > University map, not just a casual effort. > > The "schema" for tags that make the University map work is at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cambridge/University_of_Cambridge > (I've just realised I haven't updated that page with a recent, unrelated > new bit, I must do so). > > As it happens, I was also thinking about this the other day. The three > main things are that is (a) consistent and (b) doesn't change under our > feet and break the map, (c) it needs a way to distinguish these buildings > from others. It possibly wasn't the best decision to do it like this, > though I still don't think it is a terrible way to do it. Relations would > be awful: they are very hard to maintain accurately, and incidentally they > are hard to work with in consumers because they come at the end of the data > so you have to do multiple passes or keep lots of data in memory, and I > think you'd lose most of the distinctive renderings off the OSM map, though > since that's such an opaque process it's hard to know. > > building=university would work, but only if done in a controlled way so > that we don't break the map while it's being done. But do you really want > to spend your days in front of a computer changing all the university tags > in Cambridge though?! I can think of more productive and helpful things to > do. I did consider building=university, but like all things OSM, there was > a camp that only wanted building=yes, and that is what the Map_features > page then decreed (it has more now, but university isn't among them). The > more critical tags from my point of view are the operator ones. > > This raises some other points though... > > 1. What about the sites and the colleges? These are also tagged > University, and there isn't an obvious alternative that won't mean the > ordinary OSM maps don't show them. Fundamentally, is a "part of a > university" a university? I think it's helpful to do it like that. Did you > know the University of Nottingham has a branch in China - would it really > be helpful to link these with relations spanning the world? I think there's > cases both ways. > > 2. What is a University anyway? Almost no university is in one physical > area. Even campus universities like UEA have outlying premises (in UEA's > case in London too). Do you really not want the campus area to be tagged > university just because it isn't the whole thing? You said Anglia Ruskin > was one of the two universities in Cambridge - no it isn't, it's HALF a > university, the rest is in Chelmsford. I don't think it would do any harm > and would be helpful to group them with relations, if that were > maintainable sustainably, but not at the expense of losing the tags from > the outline itself. And the building thing only extends this further. Is > a University a geographical thing at all? It's an institution, which may > have some buildings but really it's a concept not a physical object - > ultimately everything on the map is just a part, not the whole. > > 4. Constantly changing tags creates a moving target that is extremely hard > to maintain for data consumers, and is a major off-putting factor in using > OSM, especially if you can't manage the process because things just change > under your feet. For example, there is a thread on talk discussing > completely changing the amenities altogether, without regard for people who > want to use this stuff in the real world. My view is that tags are merely > tokens and too much is read into the words. They are part of the API and > the fact you can change them because you prefer some other structure > doesn't mean you should. The flexibility means we can introduce new things > easily, but constant change is hard to cope with. The costs are borne > elsewhere, and what really does it buy us? > > So, I think it's OK the way it is. If it offends you unbearably, > building=university wouldn't be too hard to cope with, but please, please > don't just do it, let me change the University software first, otherwise > the map will be broken on next update (which are frequent) and they will be > very annoyed. As I said, this is effectively part of the API, even though > it may not feel like it, and constitutes a non-upward compatible change. If > you do want to do it, please do it all, not in bits, and bear in mind this > has a direct financial cost to me as a freelancer supporting the University > map, and that the University has been a big benefactor for OSM, even though > they get the rest of the map back in return, so you really don't want to > give them a slap in the face for doing so. > > David > > > On Thu, 21 May 2015 at 23:13 Phillip Barnett <phillip.p.barn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm a Cambridge mapper, but I'd advise doing nothing until you've spoken >> with David Earl who was contracted by Cambridge University to actually map >> the university - see this link >> http://soc2012.soc.org.uk/node/16.html >> Thanks >> >> >> >> > On 21 May 2015, at 22:39, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I don't relish bringing this up since it's a bit of a tangle, but I >> > noticed Cambridge has a lot more universities than I thought! >> > Apparently 1219, judging from the number of amenity=university tagged >> > objects. In real life I'm aware of two: Cambridge Uni, Anglia Ruskin >> > Uni. >> > >> > I think someone mentioned Cambridge Uni was using OpenStreetMap for >> > some of its maps,* so I'd be nervous about proposing anything radical >> > right now. But is there anyone on this list who is a Cambridge mapper, >> > or connected to the university's use of mapping? It's possible that >> > some team decided to use the tag to mark every college building (etc), >> > when really amenity=university is supposed to mark a university, not a >> > piece of a university. >> > >> > To do it "properly" it might need some neat relations to group these >> > things. (Might be fun for someone who loves relations - various >> > multi-site and hierarchical connections among the buildings scattered >> > across town!) Alternatively there are tags in use such as >> > building=university which might be good drop-in replacements... >> > >> > Best >> > Dan >> > >> > >> > * They use OSM for their basemap: http://map.cam.ac.uk/ - I wonder if >> > they're getting their POI info from it too >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
