[Tagging] college vs. university - was: multiple schools on one plot

[stevea]

On Apr 2, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Robin Burek <robin.burek at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 02.04.2021 um 21:21 schrieb stevea:
> ...Yes, I'm no more confused. You show me, that you don't have understand my problem with it.

This reply is unclear to me:  are you saying that you understand me or that I do NOT understand you, so you are disposing of my exposition of the facts of our wiki here?

> The UCSC is - like a lot of bigger universities in US and worldwide; Harward, Yale, Rice, Princeton - an Collegiate university (see for more information Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiate_university) 
> This "colleges" are subunits of the main university - more or less independently from the university administration. 
> But these sub-units of the university are not covered by the tag "amenity = college". This is also clear in the definition ("a post-secondary education institution which is not a university"). See at Yale, Harward an so on. 

No, again, you attempt to "shoehorn" semantics into much too small a container when in fact the semantics are far, far richer than your simplistic ontology above incorrectly attempts to do.  If I had to characterize why what you say is false about UCSC, the colleges ARE "sub-units of the university," they absolutely ARE correctly tagged "amenity=college."  They are "post-secondary education institutions which are not a university," true, but they are AFFILIATED WITH the university (it may even be said they are "subordinate to it" in hierarchical fashion) as they are LOCATED COTERMINOUSLY on the university campus.  Again, this isn't unusual, this isn't difficult.  This is also true of schools / kindergartens, as our wiki describes.

So, this is like asking whether California IS or ISN'T a "sub-unit" of the USA or whether Bavaria IS or ISN'T a "sub-unit" of Germany:  the answers are far, far more nuanced than "IS or ISN'T" and is actually something like "both in some cases, one or the other in most cases."  Being overly simplistic with ontologies gets us into syntactic trouble like this, so the best course is to both initially understand the danger of "smearing semantics" with overly simplistic syntax, and then to simply not do so.