[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

[Marc Gemis]

but then you should clearly explain why 5 "complex" tags for a driving
school is better than 1.
And in case you do not really need them all five, the proposal should
better indicate the required tags for a driving school and the
optional ones. I think "education_system:de_standard=yes",
"education_form:parttime=yes" and
"education_program:driving_licence:eu_b=yes" are optional. This would
simplify the tagging dramatically, not ?


I see a lot of similarity with healthcare 2.0, similar possibilities,
similar complexity, and ... similar adoption rate ??


regards

m

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Александр Шишкин <kedermail at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I (or anyone else) can not just force mappers to use or not to use
> certain tags. Only way to deal with it is to give them better way to tag
> things. That's what this proposal is about.
>
> 2016-04-14 10:06 GMT+03:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Ale
>> <kedermail at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I assume that tags related to education that have been approved and do
>> > not
>> > have "education" key should remain (not sure what to do with unapproved
>> > tags).
>>
>> I cannot advise on that. Not everybody is giving the same weight to
>> the approval process. A usage of  7681 for amenity=driving school is
>> not something that can be neglected IMHO, even when it's not approved
>> (given they were not all imported by 1 person).
>>
>> m.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>