[Tagging] How orphanage should be tagged?

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 22.04.2018 23:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 22. Apr 2018, at 22:23, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It might have as much to do with tagging as trying to replace terms with euphemisms.  They're all social facilities.
>> They're all group homes.  Then specify the target group.
> 
> I am getting more and more the impression that whole amenity=social_facility tagging system was not a good idea. It would be so much simpler and clearer at the same time if we used duck tagging. amenity=nursing_home / orphanage / soup_kitchen / daycare / food_bank etc.
> When needed you could still add the target group tag, but sometimes it is already implied.

I still consider the social_facility tagging system a success. It allows a data consumer to quickly 
distinguish e.g. an area with such facilities from an area with offices, without maintaining a large 
list of duck tags from the crowded amenity key.

As for the part of the world I live in, Charles Dickens-style 'orphanages' don't exist anymore.
Younger minors that are separated from their parents would be placed in foster families, or live in 
family-style structures following the SOS-Kinderdorf model. Juveniles live in supervised shared 
apartments (betreute Wohngemeinschaft). For the short term accommodation, there are group homes, 
however they would not primarily distinguish whether the minor is an orphan or separated from their 
parents for any other reason.

tom