> to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates > each university prominently
What *would* you show for Cambridge (or other spread out ones) for this? Where actually *is* the University of Cambridge? What would you show that the current tagging doesn't already achieve? On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:30 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com> wrote: > Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university? > > > On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> Thanks for the detailed info. My main concern is in terms of the >> consequences for other data consumers. If someone tries to use OSM >> data for anything - such as: >> (a) to plot the density of universities per county >> (b) to render a map using a UK-wide rendering scheme that indicates >> each university prominently >> - the results will be utterly wrong. So we do need some consistency, >> at least at the country-wide level. (I'm pragmatic enough not to aim >> for global consistency ;) >> >> So I'm not offended, but I do care that our data is good for everyone. >> I suggest that we should make a change but I will not rush anything! >> >> I don't know what this "camp" is that didn't like building=university. >> Was it an OSM camp (eg a discussion on the tagging email list)? Either >> way, building=university is now used quite a lot worldwide >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=university#map - I >> think it's pretty uncontroversial as a building tag. >> >> So the question, I guess, is what "jobs" amenity=university is doing >> in your scheme. Is it being used as a selector for extracting data? Is >> it being used as a selector for rendering-rules? You've got your >> operator=* tagging which looks good for selecting a data extract. >> >> If we made a two-step change such that all "building=yes, >> amenity=university, operator=.*University of Cambridge.*" were first >> modified to building=university, and then after a few months to remove >> the amenity=university from buildings and leave it on >> sites/universities/whatever-we-agree-it-should-be-on - would that work >> for you? My quick overpass check suggests that would address about 800 >> of the 1200 objects. >> >> Best >> Dan >> >> >> 2015-05-22 11:54 GMT+01:00 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com>: >> > 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
