[Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools

Stuart Reynolds stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk
Thu Jan 7 09:41:48 UTC 2016


My vote would go to a format of ref:<something>. Looking at the wiki for ref, a great many of the “<something>” there are not things that can be ascertained from a ground survey, but are internal IDs or reference numbers. What I am proposing is therefore consistent with the wiki.

I’m not at all hung up on what <something> should be, though. “edubase” ought to feature in there somewhere, and while I am minded to add “uk” as well, none of the entries tabulated on the wiki seem to bother with the country name. So would someone care to pick one, or choose one of these suggestions:


  *   ref:edubase
  *   ref:edubase_urn
  *   ref:uk_edubase
  *   ref:uk_edubase_urn
  *   ref:school:edubase
  *   ref:school:edubase_urn

I think that my favourite is the first - it has the benefit of simplicity, and it is something that people are likely to be able to remember and therefore use. And in case anyone really doesn’t know what it is, “edubase” is readily google-able.

I would like to start adding these in / amending the tags that I already have, so if we could reach some consensus then that would be great. Thanks.

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:06, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com<mailto:sk53.osm at gmail.com>> wrote:

Purely a personal preference, but I like to keep ref for thing which (generally) can be determined on a ground survey. I also like to keep separate genuine administrative references (such as the PRoW ones prow_ref, or minor roads admin_ref) separate from exposed system keys such as the edubase one.

For Food Hygiene (FHRS) data the equivalent internal identifier has converged on fhrs:id, but this was is in part because a number of other items of data from the Food Hygiene scheme have also been added within OSM. So I dont think this establishes any precedent for whether one has ref:supplier or supplier:ref or supplier_ref. Consistency would be nice but is not essential

If adding an edubase identifier, I'd also appreciate it if a FHRS one can be added too. These are certainly invariant, only changing when the premises change ownership. (I'm not sure what applies when school catering is outsourced, or if a school acquires academy status.

I must say I like the various suggestions for better micromapping of schools: this means that there is plenty to do even in well mapped areas. One thing I've always wanted to map, but have never noticed suitable tags, are the hard-surfaced school playgrounds. Clearly, using the existing leisure=playground is a poor idea as it changes the meaning of existing mapped objects; and also many primary schools will have a proper playground too.

Jerry

On 6 January 2016 at 12:42, Stuart Reynolds <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:
Hi Jez,

I was pondering that myself as I added the Edubase numbers to the schools that I have added and/or modified. I had two thoughts: one, we could just write a piece of free text such as “UK Edubase” in front of the ref; two, which is more elegant although involving non-standard tags, is that we tag it as ref:uk_edubase=* (or similar).

Regards,
Stuart



On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:36, Jez Nicholson <jez.nicholson at gmail.com<mailto:jez.nicholson at gmail.com>> wrote:

On the ref=*. Is there any convention for indicating that the ref is Edubase? I've tagged Brighton Montessori with ref=133348 ...but how would an interested party know that they would be able to find more details on Edubase http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=133348 ?

I agree that where an object is clearly 'owned' by an authority/company/etc. that it is *the* 'ref'. e.g. postbox numbers

Regards,
            Jez

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 17:05 Stuart Reynolds <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk<mailto:stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:
I’m thinking that while we are reviewing the schools, it would be a good idea to add the Edubase reference into a Ref tag for each school boundary polygon, to make it easier to track in future. Is that reference stable enough?
If we think that it is a good idea, perhaps we could make it part of an agreed “do minimum” for this project. For example:


  *   draw and tag the boundary polygon with a minimum of
     *   amenity=school
     *   name=*
     *   ref=*
  *   add entrances
     *   at least one entrance=main
     *   barrier=gate where appropriate - I would have thought most schools will have gates
     *   others entrances where appropriate
  *   then optionally, but preferably, draw the school buildings and tag building=school.

I know we don’t want to be prescriptive, but it would certainly help people (like myself) who haven't participated in projects before ’t there was a (readily achievable) level of expectation as to what involvement in the project meant.

Personally I have been adding in the buildings, but I haven’t been worrying (for now) about playing fields and the like - I’ll go back and revisit those if I have time. But there are a surprising number of missing schools so I have been looking to get those in first.

Cheers
Stuart




On 3 Jan 2016, at 21:54, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com<mailto:rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

Some great ideas and tools already shared and only January 3rd!

This made me think I should set up a wiki page but I have been beaten to it. I've expanded on the page to add links to all the resources being discussed here. Page at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_Quarterly_Projects

Rob

p.s. Big thank you to our wiki system admins who have now added the VisualEditor to the wiki. This makes it much easier to edit the wiki so no excuses for not keeping the pages up to date :-)
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20160107/06dfe26e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list