[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

Fri Apr 15 10:31:12 UTC 2016

There is the problem, not all educational institutions in country are 
the same. Even in countries that have very strict standards there are a 
lot of institutions that do not fit in current system. Some has 
specialities, some provide special education for people with 
disabilities, some provide flexible schedule for people to combine work 
and studies, some does not. This proposal tries to put such various 
information in the neat system as other advanced tagging systems like 
social_facility and boundary=protected_area have done.
Details like education programs are optional but could be useful for 
data consumers. This all similar to power=* group of tags, there are a 
lot of details in this system, that could be interesting only to a small 
group of enthusiasts and even lesser group of consumers, the same goes 
for OpenRailwayMap tags. But we still have them. Do we need such details 
in DB? Let mappers decide.

15.04.2016 12:42, Marc Gemis пишет:
> I wouldn't go that far, but I assume that in 1 country the majority of
> driving schools have the same system: begin course based, and with a
> parttime-regime and you can get all common driver licenses.
>
> So for some uses amenity=driving_school is more than sufficient. I
> understand that when you want to write a world-wide GIS application,
> you want more structure. You might want to find all course-based
> institutions.
> But do we need to place this in OSM ? Should we repeat the same tags
> for every driving school in a country over and over again ? Can't that
> be added by the data consumer ?
>
> Can't we keep some of the complexity out of OSM and move it a another
> database ? In this case a dedicated database that can answer all
> possible questions about schools. Such a database can even be
> targetted to 1 country and have a specific structure for that country.
>
> The main problem is navigation vs. GIS applications For navigation a
> broad category is sufficient. When you have to drive to a kindergarten
> you don't care about the religion, you should need it's address (or
> coordinates).
>
> I have a hard time to explain what I really mean, but when I am abroad
> and I look a a supermarket, I don't know what I can expect there
> neither: do they sell fresh meat or only prepacked, is it a discount
> supermarket, is there a service to help me choosing fish, will there
> be a wine department, etc.
>
> Still we have only 1 tag for that in osm: shop=supermarket and don't
> require mappers to add tags that are obvious for them. They know what
> they can expect when they see a supermarket of brand X.
>
> But for schools (where OSM will be used much less to make a choice),
> we require all kinds of additional tags which makes it harder to map ?
>
> Feel free to continue your proposal, I won't vote anyhow. And keep on
> using amenity=driving_school. :-)
>
> regards
>
> m
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Ale
> <kedermail at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You can probably have tags amenity=driving_school_category_b,
>> amenity=dancing_teaching_center and other purely descriptional tags and it
>> would be a mess and headache to sort and retrieve information. IMHO, it is
>> much better to have alternative advanced tagging system from which data
>> users can benefit much (e.g. search by school's speciality).
>> 14.04.2016 19:00, Marc Gemis пишет:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging