[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Education 2.0

[Tom Pfeifer]

Александр Шишкин wrote on 2016/07/17 15:36:
> Proposal for more flexible and extensible tagging scheme for educational facilities.
> The voting have been started.
> You can vote for/against proposal and get familiar with it here <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0#Voting>.

I checked the discussion that was held on this list in April [1]
and found little of the concern that had been expressed being considered
in the version that has been put for voting now.

While usually I am in favour of a mild hierarchy in tagging, this proposal
fails for me to bring the expected structure, while creating confusion on
well established tags with high frequency.

The proposal tries to bring all aspects of education in an ontology
encoded with *:=yes key-only tags, which completely thwarts our key/value scheme,
and appears absurd to me.

It mixes hierarchical aspects with high-level duck tagging, such as proposing
education=school next to education=elementary_school and education=high_school,
and proposes education_level:*=yes which makes the previous fragmentation
redundant.

It proposes specialised replacements for information we already have generic
tags for, such as
- education_for:ages=16-48 instead of min_age and max_age
- education_fee=* instead of fee=*
- education_system:religious=yes instead of religion=*.

It mixes in elements that belong in to the leisure namespace, such as
karate dojos.

As a side effect, the proposal introduces a new amenity=daycare (not used so far)
for "non-educational" kindergarten, which is poorly defined since any child service
educates in some form, it is just more or less formalised; and daycare alone is
ambiguous since it could also refer to daycare of senior or handicapped people.

It will cause huge migration issues.

In general, while showing some good intent, the proposal is immature.

[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-April/thread.html

tom