<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi all,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the interesting and nuanced discussion that has come
up.<br>
<br>
I'm gonna try address multiple issues in this mail:<br>
<br>
</p>
<h3>Inclusive schools</h3>
<p>If a school is legally required to accept students with some
disability or extra care need, this does not change anything to
the fact that this is an <b>ad hoc</b> policy for this student.
If it is called <i>Individual</i> Education/service plan, the
ad-hoc nature is hidden in plain sight.<br>
<br>
From another perspective, having a school legally require to
accept these students makes the school still mainstream, which
would again indicate that <i>no</i> special tag is needed.<br>
<br>
Note that I did add a paragraph to make this explicit, but this
was already stated within the actual proposal.<br>
</p>
<h3>Normal_abled vs mainstream</h3>
<p>The proposal to switch from "normal_abled" to mainstream sounds
pretty good - so I switched in in the draft. I also ade explicit
that this is a tag that should <i>only</i> be used if e.g. both
normal_abled students and special-ed students are both taught at
the same school (or if one could doubt this).<br>
<br>
Whether or not these special students and normal-abled students
are taught in a mixed manner out of scope for this tag. It could
be a nice follow-up tagging scheme.<br>
<br>
</p>
<h3>Eduction:*</h3>
<p>Oh, F***. The "education:*" looks like yet another undocumented
can of worms...<br>
<br>
I am however considering to move this proposal from <b>school:for</b>
to <b>education:for</b> as this will also enable this tagging on
other educational features such as kindergartens, universities,
colleges, ...<br>
<br>
Furthermore, <b>education:</b><b>facilities_for</b> might <i>also</i>
be good, but then we lose the ability to indicate that
normal-abled students are taught on a school to. (There are some
schools where you <i>need to have</i> a diagnosis of something
to be able to enter)<br>
<br>
</p>
<h3>Other tags and previous usage<br>
</h3>
<p>I've noted int the wiki tags such as `access:deaf` and
`access:blind` should be retagged. There are about 60 entries of
both, mostly on the same objects.<br>
In a similar vein, we'll probably have to retag various other tags
with the same intent to this value; but as this is very spread
out, it is hard to determine which ones this are.<br>
</p>
<h3>Normal people might never use this data!?</h3>
<p>Yeah, so what? There are many other use cases, e.g. statistics or
governmental uses. The fact that I have been spending the last two
weeks nearly full time on this subject, paid by my employer to do
this illustrates that there is a need for this data (or at least
school data). OpenStreetMap is used for way more then only
creating maps ;)<br>
<br>
Furhtermore, as main dev of MapComplete, I have experienced more
then once that making this data easy to access and easy to update
is key to having the data updated and used. This is not the first
time OSM has gotten into a very niche topic. Rather, I'd say that
OSM's <i>strength</i> is that it <i>bundles</i> and <i>integrates</i>
all this niche mapping!<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Pieter<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19.06.22 09:24, stevea wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5457706D-17B2-4977-9968-7C05B4BEBB10@softworkers.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Jun 19, 2022, at 12:10 AM, Minh Nguyen <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us"><minh@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">What can I say, my crystal ball is imperfect. :-)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
We do our best here, indeed!
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It's not that I want it to be impossible to use OSM in a certain manner. But if a realistic use case cannot be articulated for tagging something as difficult to ascertain as IEP/ISP acceptance, then how do we know we're designing the right tagging scheme upfront? Better to let such tagging evolve organically and revisit it later than to design a potentially flawed scheme now, get it approved, and be stuck trying to explain it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Yes, there is letting tagging evolve (throwing at the dartboard), then there is "perfection is the enemy of the good," so you never throw the dart, fearing to never hit the bullseye, let alone hitting even the dartboard at all. Somewhere in the middle is a sweet spot, and it's not always east to "foresee!"
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>