search

colouring-cities / colouring-core

The Core Platform for the Colouring Cities Research Programme (CCRP)
https://colouringcities.org
GNU General Public License v3.0
48 stars 43 forks source link

UI/UX: Community category - Activate maps/join with Like me? #433

Closed dominijk closed 9 months ago

dominijk commented 5 years ago

Dependencies Run migrations as #432 to enable input to db

What UI does Allows input for three fields in category as below, allows multi copy;

What map looks like On load, category visualisation is ownership type. Initial colours as below;

Remaining categories should overlay onto this. Ie hatch or symbol so you can visualise the current state and either/or of the others. @tomalrussell i'm new to mapnik would this mean adding a layer with transparent background or would it render a new tile with colour and symbol.

polly64 commented 4 years ago

Pause on this as will be merged with like me?

dominijk commented 4 years ago

@polly64 Can you confirm this and provide a bit more on how this will work and what it would look like? This is one of the categories that the work is largely completed on so could go live without much further work.

polly64 commented 4 years ago

Hi Dom I'm rejigging the Like me? and Community/Ownership categories to merge.

Think we've still got a bit much on the private ownership side. Though we need to support and stimulate work in this area, the issue of ownership can be absorbed at a later date as discussion - which is being advanced as you've identified, opens these data up even more. We need to be v careful about a) distracting from all the other areas of the project . We also know this is a prime target for heated media debate. Would be good to keep our 2 main messages crystal clear i.e a) user and building owner privacy is paramount, b) our work is primarily about collating visualising and generating data that are as accurate as possible in a format that can be used in scientific analysis of the city to advance research into its sustainability. I think by merging private at the moment it prevents us crossing or coming close to privacy lines.

I can totally see why the private ownership data are important in analysis but I just think at the moment we need keep with your original idea of assuming it is all private and asking which ones are community/state owned only. We can subdivide at a later date but this needs much more consultation and discussion. (I think initially though we shouldn't colourcode as 'assume private' let's chat re this)

In summary we can collect data in this section on ownership - but just not include subdivisions for private - and focus needs to be on community first. Under 'Team' we will also be collating data on historical ownership of sites so we will build up a lot of interesting data here.

As we now have the Dynamics section being introduced we need to remove the Community category. I'd like to therefore try test contents for the community assets section under Like me? Paul directed me to the current government 'Keep it in the community' campaign so these link nicely. Also could you possibly try and access Government property Unity for national assets?

So we'll keep Like me? still and rename the subtitle Local asset?(unless u have any other thoughts?) . As I've mentioned before I think it is still possible we may need to limit Like me? to non-residential for security/privacy in future so we just need to watch this one.

At the RIBA Festival of Architecture, at the AKT 11 event through the SomersTown consultation a number of interesting comments were made: a) that tracking loss of rented community space would be very useful for community groups trying to deliver specific types of community services b) that it would be good to show somehow that community spaces don't necessarily benefit from being rebuilt as part of large developments - often seen as simply box ticking and done to 'tidy up' the space. Often retaining buildings and simply upgrading and extending them is much more efficient, cost effective and less disruptive. Should this not be the first thing considered in sustainable planning-think long-term and reuse whatever you can c) Booking community space allocated for community use in development schemes is not necessarily free but can be charged for by the hour at quite a high cost by new venues. Though we can't address all immediately I think good to record this here.

So I'm thinking the subcats/questions would be as follows:

  1. Do you like this building and think it contributes to the city as a whole?
    (as before -with number of likes counter. as before tick option only is included to prevent spatial cyberbullying/ensure safe constructive platform space/ no reason sought as this can be taken up by other research projects)

  2. Do you think it's of importance for the local community? (tick option only)

  3. Do you know if it's ever been used for public/community activities in the past? (Yes no) possible weblink? (I have phrased the question like this so it feels optional and doesn't put off people who don't know about the history)

  4. Is it owned by: a) The local community or by b) The local authority/government c) An institution/non-government body with a public remit d) A private owner (individual or group) e) Other - (no text option here)

Initial visualisations a) like me (as we have) b) ownership No weblinks on this section other than for historical sub/cat

dominijk commented 4 years ago

@polly64 Given that having two visualisations within a category is a bigger change. For now/Paris are we keeping the Like me category and community category as they are? I think the changes suggest in 1 - 3 are good. I think 4 needs further discussion but I'd be keen to resolve this soon as it interweaves with landuse to some extent > I've move that discussion to slack.

polly64 commented 4 years ago

Yes good idea. Ok: a) Let's visualise Like me as now (only one to be visualised at present) b) start collecting questions 1-3 asap c) talk more about question 4