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
