[Talk-GB] 2016 first quarterly project:Schools
bprangle at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 10:26:42 UTC 2016
I'm happy with your first alternative
On 7 January 2016 at 09:41, Stuart Reynolds <
stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk> wrote:
> 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
> - 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.
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:06, SK53 <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
> On 6 January 2016 at 12:42, Stuart Reynolds <
> 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).
>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 11:36, Jez Nicholson <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
>> 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
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 17:05 Stuart Reynolds <
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> On 3 Jan 2016, at 21:54, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
>>> 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:
>>> 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
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB