[Talk-GB] Schools Progress Tracker Update

[Ed Loach]

Stuart wrote:

> 1 site, 2 schools:
> • boundary has amenity=school
> • buildings have school names & e.g. edubase tags. I used amenity=school for 
> the individual buildings though, as well as building=school. It should probably 
> only be building=school, really, as the site is the amenity. But this way it gets 
> picked up on the match tool.
> • I would ideally like to have named the boundary e.g. “Hamstel Schools” 
> or “Chalkwell Schools” but haven’t as that will (for now) lead to a false “look at” flag.

I think what you describe as what you’d ideally like to do is what I did in those examples I mentioned in my previous email (I can't remember though whether I used building=school or building=yes).

> 1 school, 2 sites.
> 
> • I used the site relation, via JOSM. I believe that this is the correct way to do it. I 
> tagged the site relation with the edubase code and names, and the individual sites 
> with the names of e.g. “XX upper school” and “XX lower school”. However, these 
> didn’t get matched.

The site relation page however 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site#Proposal
suggests it should be multipolygon and not site -
"For example the tag amenity=school describes the perimeter of the school grounds, for schools with multiple sites the multipolygon relation can be used. Usage of a site relation is not appropriate here."

Ed