[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

Wed Apr 13 12:02:42 UTC 2016

I have made clarifications about current tags on proposal page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0#Current_tagging_system
Since education=* tags just duplicate amenity=school, college etc, they 
fit proposal well. Subtags like *education*:students_female 
<http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/education%3Astudents_female> has no 
description and I just do not understand what they mean: only female 
students allowed? or female students allowed as well as male? Is it true 
for the whole institution or just for some educational programs? This 
proposal does not concerns such undecribed tags so I assume should not 
affect them.
This proposal describes *only* educational services and facilities, 
research services and institutions is huge topic and thus should have 
their own proposal. As well daycares are not educational institutions 
and that's why they are not in the proposal.
Also keep in mind that institution could possibly provide not only 
educational services. For example massage parlor could teach masseurs, 
but they main service is still massage. Because of that some tag without 
"education:*" could be mistaken to apply to other services: education of 
masseurs could be for people above 18, but massage services are for 
people of any age.
If there is no country standards but only Federal Land (for Germany) 
standards, its is possible to insert Land ISO code instead of countries. 
But I am sure that is the matter of discussion of German community. 
Situation similar to boundary=protected_area, every community should 
decide which set of tags in the proposal appropriate for their country 
and in which cases should be used.
There is age discrimination in education. Some schools (especially music 
ones) do not allow children above or below certain age. It is unfair, 
but imho people should know that there is age restrictions in such 
educational facility. Age categories taken from Healthcare 2.0 proposal, 
maybe they do not fit. I will consider it.
I also agree about boarding and fulltime extended, I'll add this in the 
proposal.

I think mailing list could be not really suitable for such lengthy 
discussions. I invite you to discuss details on the discussion page, if 
you wish:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Education_2.0

13.04.2016 12:44, Martin Koppenhoefer пишет:
> I think this proposal is quite elaborate and could be useful (with 
> some modifications) as a kind of summary page to find useful tags for 
> a particular school to be tagged as. It also contains useful concepts 
> how additional detail could be added in a formalized way. But I don't 
> think this is something that should get "approved" and then the whole 
> tagging system that already is established, would be changed 
> accordingly and hundreds of thousands of objects would get retagged – no.
>
>
> education=* is currently tagged on 1000 objects. Did you check whether 
> these confirm with this proposal?
> http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/education#values
>
> There are also quite some education-namespace-subkeys in use, that are 
> not yet in the education 2.0 proposal. Will these be integrated?
> http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=education
>
>
> This is quite a long list of tags.
>
> I'll comment on some tags where I believe comments are most useful:
>
>
>
> education <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education>=kindergarten
> education <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education>=school
> education <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education>=college
> education <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education>=university
>
> these appear to be all duplicates of amenity=... In your reasoning you 
> write that the advantage of moving these to a new key is avoiding to 
> keep a list of education related features in the amenity tags, but 'd 
> rather keep this list than retagging all those objects and change all 
> those data consumers.
>
> I also believe that these are too few classes to differentiate the 
> type of institutions that occur (or you put them all under "school" 
> and shift the problem one level up). E.g. professional schools (in 
> German: Berufsbildende Schulen, further distinguished in Berufsschule 
> and Berufsfachschule, see here in German: 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berufsbildende_Schule ), Fachhochschulen 
> (Wikipedia:en calls them vocational universities: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_university ) and likely more.
>
> What about research institutes? Not sure if they do educate, but I 
> guess some might be considered also educational.
>
> Also on the lower end, there are some differentiations that I miss in 
> your scheme, e.g. daycare for children under the age of 3 (maybe not 
> educational?), daycare for children after the kindergarten or school 
> closes, ...
>
> Further differentiation of schools (primary education, secondary 
> education, different types of them). There are quite a lot of 
> different particularities of schools if you look at the details (that 
> are indeed interesting for who wants to select a school), and those 
> are mostly country specific (or even sub-country specific, like in the 
> case of Germany).
>
> There are quite some amenity=childcare (5k+) in use right now, but the 
> proposal doesn't mention it:
> http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=amenity%3Dchildcare
>
> There are also 191 amenity=preschool in use:
> http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=amenity%3Dpreschool
>
>
>
> education <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:education>=subdivision
>
> there are also these keys in use:
> http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/faculty#overview
> http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/institute
>
>
>
> education_for:*ages*
> Have a look at the introduced tags min_age and max_age that are dealt 
> with here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten
>
>
>
> education_fee=*
> Why should we prepend the "education_" part to the well introduced key 
> "fee" (also suggested on the kindergarten page linked above)? Are 
> there different fees we would potentially want to tag for educational 
> features?
>
>
>
> education_system:de_standard=yes
> This is not working, because a country code is not sufficient in 
> Germany: there is no "German" standard, every Land has it's own 
> standard, as education is the task of the Länder.
>
>
>
> education_for:*child* children (4-11 years) education_for:*adolescent* 
> adolescents (12-19 years) education_for:*adult* adults (20 years and 
> above) education_for:*senior* senior (60 years and above) 
> education_for:*boy* boys (males below 20) education_for:*girl* girls 
> (females below 20) education_for:*man* adult men (above 20) 
> education_for:*woman* adult women (above 20)
>
>
>
> I don't think we should create age groups like this. These will always 
> be completely arbitrary and depend on countryspecific legislation and 
> will not fit well in a tagging scheme intended to map the whole world. 
> E.g. adults starting at the age of 20 is not something that sounds 
> familiar to me, generally there are different relevant ages that 
> determine this step, e.g. age of majority, voting age, legal drinking 
> age, marriageable age, age of consent, ...
> Have a look here where the age of majority is set in different 
> countries: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority#Countries_and_subdivisions
> (note that the majority seems to set it at 18, although I didn't sum 
> the populations up). I believe the min_age and max_age concept offers 
> much more flexibility.
> Similar considerations are valid for the other age group tags.
> There is also an inherent problem leaving a gap for the age of 20 
> (adults are defined as 20+ while men and women are defined as 21+ and 
> boys and girls are defined as 0-19).
>
>
>
> "boarding=yes" for boarding schools
> You prepended "education_" to almost every tag, but you didn't do it 
> here, where it would be quite useful, as "boarding" does require 
> context to understand the meaning, and there is the risk that the same 
> tag might be used in different context as well. You can also see this 
> from the (few) already used tags: http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=boarding
>
>
>
> single_gender_education 
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:single_gender_education&action=edit&redlink=1>=yes. 
>
>
> according to spelling rules this should likely be 
> "single-gender_education"
>
>
>
> education_form:fulltime / parttime
> If you look at a specific place, e.g. Berlin, you will see that there 
> are more classes in use:
>
> - halbtags (half a day, 4-5 hours/day)
> - teilzeit (parttime, 5-7 hours/day)
> - ganztags (fulltime, 7-9hours/day)
> - ganztags erweitert (fulltime extended, more than 9 hours/day)
>
> Reference (see page 2, 1.5): 
> https://www.berlin.de/ba-mitte/politik-und-verwaltung/aemter/jugendamt/kindertagesbetreuung/kita-und-hortanmeldungen/2013_kitaantrag_mit_einkommenserklaerung.pdf
> The scheme should be extended to cater at least for these additional 
> classes (or changed to be more flexible, e.g. indicate the number of 
> hours).
>
>
> Please excuse the brevity of my review but I don't have more time for 
> this at the moment ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160413/4734dabb/attachment.html>