[Tagging] nursing homes and group homes

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jun 27 10:12:20 UTC 2016

On 6/27/2016 7:56 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/06/27 11:20:
>> Recently we have discovered (in a thread on the Italian ML), that 
>> someone has deprecated amenity=nursing_home by putting a disclaimer 
>> on the wikipage [1] to use
>> amenity=social_facility
>> social_facility=group_home
> [...]
>> What do you say, shouldn't we remove this disclaimer from the nursing 
>> home page and shall we continue to encourage the use of the tag 
>> amenity=nursing_home where it applies to?
> No. amenity=social_facility is a success story of structured tagging, and
> nursing_home -> social_facility shows in Mathias Dahl excellent tag 
> migration
> analysis [1] as the tag with the highest transition count, thus excellent
> acceptance among mappers.
> A nursing home is indeed a social facility, and with the sub-tags of
> social_facility=* and social_facility:for=* you can specify quite
> precisely what type it is and who it is provided for.
> I agree that subsuming permanent care under the type 
> social_facility=group_home
> is not ideal, and it might be possible to develop a better match,
> such as social_facility=permanent_care (contrasting the 
> =ambulatory_care) or similar
> for this type, even social_facility=nursing_home could be possible.
> [1] 
> http://matiasdahl.iki.fi/2015/finding-related-amenity-tags-on-the-openstreetmap

The first wiki page for social_facility=group_home back in May 2011 says 
"amenity=nursing_home not to be used" .. and list the status as approved 
.. so it should have been talked about somewhere. ~21,000 occurrences in 
the data base.
The wiki page for amenity=nursing_home has the status of 'inuse' .. 
~11,000 occurrences in the data base.

More information about the Tagging mailing list