<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">"OSM is not beholden to data consumers. <br>
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a
valid reason. <br>
Upsetting CU isn't one"</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span> </span>Not a great way to build a community when the data user in
question<a href="https://osmuk.org/case-studies/mapping-a-distributed-campus-for-the-university-of-cambridge/"> put in a lot of resource in order to create the OSM data in the firstplac</a>e
</p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:35, Dave F via Talk-GB <<a href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Jerry<br>
<br>
On 06/02/2020 10:19, SK53 wrote:<br>
> Funnily enough this long-standing issue came up at our pub meeting last<br>
> month. Although my reaction has always been to let sleeping dogs lie, this<br>
> was clearly not the consensus.<br>
<br>
It's detrimental to the quality of the OSM database. it requires sorting <br>
out.<br>
<br>
> I've sent a message to University of Cambridge Information Services who run<br>
> the <a href="http://map.cam.ac.uk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">map.cam.ac.uk</a> site which consumes the OSM data<br>
<br>
Is this their sole use? There was a hint in a university blog there were <br>
other sites<br>
<br>
> , to warn them that a<br>
> change is impending. It's probably worth holding off for a week or so to<br>
> allow them to assess any impact on their map.<br>
<br>
I was going to give it a week from my post to allow other OSM <br>
contributors to have their say. I don't want this to fizzle out as has <br>
happened on previous occasions. OSM is not beholden to data consumers. <br>
They take the data 'as is'. That includes any amendments.<br>
<br>
My planned amendment can always be reversed if there is a valid reason. <br>
Upsetting CU isn't one.<br>
<br>
> Incidentally, knowing a<br>
> specific contact point would help as university IT departments can be big<br>
> beasts these days. It does show that having a good contact point is always<br>
> a good idea for directed edits when data is in use.<br>
<br>
It depends how the institution is set up, but I've found bursar/estates <br>
departments are the more interested in the map's appearance. IT <br>
departments focus more on 0 & 1s.<br>
<br>
> As others have said there is a lot of inconsistency: particular with former<br>
> houses taken into University or College ownership which sometimes get<br>
> building=house/semi and other times building=university. There are other<br>
> college buildings of this type which are not hit by amenity=university at<br>
> all.<br>
<br>
These are to assess what would bel eft after I make my planned amendment.<br>
Note these are not all CU (ie Anglia Ruskin)<br>
<br>
Buildings=yes, without amenity but have 'university' in the operator tag:<br>
<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsU" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsU</a><br>
<br>
Buildings that aren't '=yes', without amenity but have 'university' in <br>
the operator tag:<br>
<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsT" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QsT</a><br>
<br>
Non building, amenity=university, Has 'University of Cambridge' in the <br>
operator tag<br>
<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt3</a><br>
<br>
Non building, amenity=university, operator is not 'University of Cambridge'<br>
<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt1</a><br>
<br>
Non building, amenity=university, No operator tag<br>
<a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt4" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Qt4</a><br>
<br>
> Other general points I noticed relating to inconsistency/issues (largely<br>
> arising because Cambridge got mapped earlier than many places or it just<br>
> has a lot of things which are otherwise rare):<br>
><br>
> - Theological Colleges are loosely associated with the university, and<br>
> are equally loosely amenity=university in their own right. I don't know if<br>
> we have a regular way of tagging non-degree awarding religious training<br>
> centres. These are something of an Oxbridge speciality. I see the London<br>
> Institute of Theology is tagged<br>
> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/524375396" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/524375396</a>> as a college. Years ago I<br>
> mapped Coleg Trefecca as a conference centre, but used old_ tags to<br>
> indicate it's historical role as a college training people for the<br>
> ministry. Fortunately some of the odder places<br>
> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.18591/-3.02706" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.18591/-3.02706</a>> of former<br>
> times have similarly changed their roles.<br>
> - Sports facilities (especially isolated playing fields and boathouses)<br>
> are just tagged with a ref and operator. Pavilions are often tagged<br>
> building=university, as is the sports centre.<br>
> - Cambridge colleges are independent corporations in their own right, so<br>
> probably should have separate amenity=university relations (although the<br>
> world is unlikely to end if not).<br>
<br>
They maybe financially independent, but still stand under the umbrella <br>
of CU. Why can't they have separate college or faculty relations?<br>
<br>
> They mostly form discrete campuses.<br>
> Isolated parts are named separately so just replacing these with a relation<br>
> doesn't work. North Court, Emma is one such example. There are similarly<br>
> very well known parts of the university with their own widely used names:<br>
> Downing Site, New Museums, West Cambridge etc. This is true of most<br>
> universities now that many are multi-campus. I don't think we have a good<br>
> approach to these: roles in relations, campus_name … are all possibilities.<br>
> (This also applies to schools now that one academy can take over another).<br>
> - There's plenty of (non-public accessible) student accommodation which<br>
> is not mapped as such. I presume this is intentional. Examples the Trinity<br>
> staircase above the bike shop on Jesus Lane, most of Lower Park St (Jesus),<br>
> and Portugal Place,<br>
> - Multiple buildings mapped as one<br>
> <<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147487988" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/147487988</a>>. There are probably<br>
> others, but this one I know. The larger part of the building is the<br>
> former Cambridgeshire<br>
> County Hall<br>
> <<a href="https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101265198-county-hall-cambridge#.Xjr8Fm52u01" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101265198-county-hall-cambridge#.Xjr8Fm52u01</a>>,<br>
> built around 1910 and Grade II listed, the S part is a 17th century house<br>
> <<a href="https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101332167-christs-college-x-staircase-cambridge-market-ward#.Xjr7yG52u00" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101332167-christs-college-x-staircase-cambridge-market-ward#.Xjr7yG52u00</a>><br>
> (formerly 'X' staircase), also Grade II. The two buildings form a single<br>
> unit of student accommodation which presumably reflects the mapping.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Jerry<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 15:15, Dave F via Talk-GB <<a href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 04/02/2020 14:28, Dan S wrote:<br>
>>> Hi Dave,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I agree with what you suggest. Can we be a bit precise though about<br>
>>> what you propose? You're proposing to remove amenity=university from<br>
>>> building=university in Cambridge, and make no other tagging changes?<br>
>> That's correct. I'm going to load the 1050 return by this overpass query<br>
>> into JOSM:<br>
>> [bbox:{{bbox}}];<br>
>> nwr[amenity=university][building=university];<br>
>> out meta geom;<br>
>><br>
>> plus another 7 which are still tagged as building=yes.<br>
>><br>
>>> (Ironically, the current tagging makes it hard for me to search to see<br>
>>> if there's a "proper" amenity=university in there somewhere, e.g. as a<br>
>>> relation or area covering a large swathe of them.)<br>
>> There isn't, I'm afraid.. it's a right hotchpotch<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QnH</a><br>
>><br>
>> These are the remaining 117 amenity=university which will need to be<br>
>> rectified at a later date..<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers<br>
>> DaveF<br>
>>> Op di 4 feb. 2020 om 14:15 schreef Dave F via Talk-GB<br>
>>> <<a href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>>:<br>
>>>> Hi<br>
>>>> There was a discussion 5 years ago. There may have been others.<br>
>>>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017455.html</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Many amenity=university tags were added unnecessarily to building=yes<br>
>>>> A contributor had converted these to building=university, in accordance<br>
>>>> with the wiki.<br>
>> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Duniversity</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40649767</a><br>
>>>> This allows the removal of the amenity tags without loss of data.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The user who created his disparate tagging schema has had plenty of time<br>
>>>> to rectify. I think this should be performed now.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-GB mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
>><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-GB mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a><br>
</blockquote></div>