[Talk-GB] too many universities in Cambridge

[Dan S]

2015-05-22 12:33 GMT+01:00 David Earl <david at 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 <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does the main OSM rendering understand building=university?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 May 2015 at 12:27 Dan S <danstowell+osm at 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 <david at 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.barnett at 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+osm at 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 at openstreetmap.org
>>> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> >> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb