[Imports] NSW, AU Public Schools Import

[Andrew Harvey]

Thanks Frederik and Martin, your feedback is very much appreciated.

On 26 April 2018 at 01:14, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>
> * I find access=private a bit strange. By your logic ("can be thrown out
> any time") every restaurant and shop would also be access=private. I'd
> leave it out, I do not think it adds any information.
>

If there is no access tag, then a road or footway going through a school is
fair game for general public routing, however most public schools here I've
seen always have signs up saying it's private property and don't allow
access in that way. I admit though this isn't something I'm importing,
rather just something I thought would be good to add at the same time, so
if it's problematic I can leave it out, but I've still been adding
access=private where I see such signage. Shops and restaurants don't
usually have thoroughfares like a lot of schools do.

* capacity - I suggest to leave that out. The current enrolment figures
> don't say anything about the capacity; the school could even be over
> capacity. (NB capacity:pupils and capacity:persons are both in more
> frequent use with schools than just capacity, though they probably all
> stem from imports.)
>

How about school:enrolment, that makes it clear that this is the current
enrolment and not capacity, because I agree they are different. It's the
equivalent of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:population.

NB capacity is what https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=school
suggestions, not capacity:pupils or capacity:persons, even then the wiki
isn't very clear about this as it says `capacity` is "for the number of
pupils taught at the school", which sounds like current enrolment to me.

On 26 April 2018 at 07:52, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was using capacity in the past for the current figures (no import, took
> occasionally the figures from their webpage). While I agree “over capacity”
> is something that happens in the real world, I am not sure if that’s the
> way the tag is used in OSM for schools. This is an interesting information
> to understand the importance of the school, so I am for putting it
>

Agreed, it's useful in understanding the size of the school.

* Mapping source "ref"s with imported data is suggested by many
> importers but it's not generally well liked. By trying to keep the link
> with the "original" data, you give the signal that this is somehow not a
> native OSM object but a copy of something kept elsewhere. If a mapper
> splits up a school campus for some reason, what are they supposed to do
> with the various "refs" - keep? remove from one half? remove from both?
> call you to discuss? This uncertainty might lead to mappers not daring
> to edit the object. Do you want to discourage people from editing the
> imported data?
>

I can sympathise with this, as a mapper I've encountered exactly what you
describe and I know it does scare users away as it makes the object feel
like it shouldn't be touched outside of the import. That's not what I'd
want at all, so I'm generally quite aggressive in either ignoring or
removing ref tags from past imports where I need to make edits like you
describe, and would be fine if that continued to happen, but agree not
everyone would do this.

I don't think the ref tags are super important though, so I'd be happy to
drop them from the import.


> * contact - I tend to use "phone=x" and not "contact:phone=x" but I
> guess that's a matter of taste.
>


> For an import it is not a question of taste, IMHO it should use the term
> with more use (if the meaning is the same)


Indeed the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=school says
use "contact:" prefix, but both mean exactly the same thing, and both have
large usages, so any data consumer must already be able to accept both. I
find putting the contacts together with contact makes it easier for mappers
as it groups these related tags together just like the "addr:" prefix does.


> * school:gender - I'd seek more input on that, it is very rarely used.
> Unsure if it is the best tag, maybe a more general way of saying "who is
> this school for" can be found.
>

"Who is this school for" is a very general question as it covers a lot of
interdependent criteria. eg. High school vs. Primary School, Boys vs.
Girls, K-6 vs 7-12, a German International School vs a local school, a
specialist Music school, a demonstration school, religious, public,
private, academically selective, schools in hospitals for child patients,
specialist schools for children with certain kinds of disabilities, the
list goes on. Often you might have any combination, eg, a Girls only K-6
Catholic school for kids with physical disabilities, so for that reason I
feel separate tags for each is better than a single general tag.


>
> * source tag - on the changeset.
>

That's fine with me, existing tags like source=Bing, I'd move to
source:geometry to be clear only the geometry came from Bing.


> * You write "I'm aware there are a number of "schools" in the upstream
> data we might not consider schools for OSM". I'd try to weed them out
> somehow, or at least try to find tags that allow the consumer to weed
> them out. I figure that people might do things like "judge the quality
> of accommodation by how far it is from nearby schools" or so, and if it
> turns out that the nearby school is just a summer excursion destination
> - not so great.
>
>
Given the wiki says "Use amenity=school to identify a place where pupils,
normally between the ages of about 6 and 18 are taught under the
supervision of teachers." I'd say it meets these definition of
amenity=school. Maybe there is a better way to say this isn't a school you
can enroll in for regular attendance...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20180426/96bb070e/attachment-0001.html>