Right, OK thanks. So let me try and answer without raising any sub-controversies - that's why I was reluctant to answer "what would you show for cambridge"!
If there was a single mortar-board for every geographically self-contained UoC "site" on the map - that seems rather reasonable. The minimalist way to achieve that would be for those sites to have amenity=university tag, and for none of the buildings within them to have that tag. (The humanitarian map would then look good...) I personally would find that still a little bit curious but here I'm not proposing to impose my ideal relation-tastic solution, since you've raised some objections to that kind of thing. For university buildings that are standalone, not part of a larger "site" - well I guess if I had to design a map I wouldn't put any mortar-board for them, though I might decide to give them a mortar-board at the highest zoom level. (This might be achieved via building=university perhaps. Though the question is about the rendering not the tagging.) Is this a meaningful answer to your rendering question? I hope so. Best Dan 2015-05-22 13:03 GMT+01:00 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com>: > Sorry, that wasn't intended to be provocative, it was a serious question. > Irrespective of how it is tagged, how should one show a spread out > institution on a map? If you do ARU with two mortar boards or some such > should Cambridge be 10, one for each site, 41 including the colleges, or > what? One could argue that it's the mapping you cited that's inadequate > because it should collapse them into one when they are sufficiently close > together to not be distinct (like ios does for photo locations on a map for > example*), and that when zoomed in you *do* want them to be shown > separately. In any case neither the current scheme nor a relation scheme > preclude that, they are currently group-able by operator (which is a much > more sustainable way of relating them IMO than relations). > > I asked about the building=university rendering because it would be a shame > to lose the university buildings as distinct on the main map, and I have no > control over fixing that. No doubt someone would catch up with it > eventually. > > I would have to go back to the code to see what the exact implications of > removing the amenity tags are, it's three years since I wrote it. I am > almost certain that changing building=yes to building=university is > harmless, but if I then have to rely on it, we have to be careful that > university libraries aren't tagged building=library for example as the > information gets lost. > > David > > * in similar vein one of the developments that's been requested for the > university map is that when you get a search hit where the result blobs are > overlapping they should be merged into one. This is very hard to do, so it > will cost a lot. > > > On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:40 Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2015-05-22 12:33 GMT+01:00 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com>: >> >> 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? >> >> It doesn't matter what I would do. The UoC tagging is inconsistent >> with the tagging for other universities, in a way that means no-one >> can currently design a UK-wide map render that can handle universities >> properly. >> >> I understand that you don't like this erupting under your feet, but >> I'm afraid that's what happens in wiki-like systems. Please, please be >> happy that I'm a considerate map editor who tries to discuss rather >> than just to edit. We have absolutely no guarantees that a map editor >> who loves consistency but doesn't love communication will not break >> your schema at any moment! >> >> I'd be really grateful if you could comment on my suggestion about >> modifying the building tags. >> >> Best >> Dan >> >> >> > 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
