[Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Sep 17 09:29:55 UTC 2017


I would suggest there needs to be a separation between the school as an organisation, a campus, a building, and the courses provided. Here in NL there are many mixed colleges, which provide statutory education to kids  (16+), adult academic education and vocational training. Such colleges often have multiple locations, and do not always offer everything at all locations. Multiple schools can be overseen by a common board of governors as well.
Driving schools have an office for the administration, but the actual education is delivered elsewhere - on the road, or in some classrooms in the case of theory education. The examinations take place in yet another location, which has nothing to do with the driving schools - it is operated by a government agency.

IMHO the structure of the tagging scheme should reflect the real world, unless we agree that certain distinctions are not relevant to OSM, as we can then agree to simplify the model. The exact spelling or choice of word is of secondary importance.

//colin

On 17 September 2017 11:05:02 CEST, "Erkin Alp Güney" <erkinalp9035 at gmail.com> wrote:
>I have partly inspired by Turkish standardized education institution
>identification guide. Most of the school kinds mentioned, except
>universities, including ministry itself has distinct color codes
>identifying what kind of education institution they are (for example,
>all secondary schools have to use signs with yellow backgrounds). Since
>renders can only display data that are already in database, we have to
>identify these subtypes somehow using data model if we want them to be
>able to render differently. Another use case, you are going to be able
>to search for all education ministries in the world by simple tag
>search
>for education=administrative or all driving schools in the world by
>similar search for education=driving with this new scheme. Previously
>impractical.
>
>
>17-09-2017 11:52 tarihinde Tobias Knerr yazdı:
>> In my opinion, and speaking broadly, the job of the OSM tagging
>system
>> is to answer two questions:
>>
>> - What kind of feature is this?
>> - What properties does this feature have?
>
>> Contrary to this, some mappers (and your proposal) prefer to use the
>> superfluous key as a makeshift category system. I feel that's the
>wrong
>> way to go, though: How to best group features into categories depends
>on
>> the application you have in mind, and providing a categorization is
>not
>> any more the tagging system's job than making rendering style
>decisions
>> is. OSM data tells you that there is an education ministry in that
>> location. Whether that feature is filed under the "education",
>"office"
>> or "government" heading is an application developer's responsibility,
>> and should be of no concern for the OSM data model.
>>
>> tl;dr: Keys are not categories.
>Yours, faithfully
>Erkin Alp
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20170917/f61ad52d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list