[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)

Violaine_Do violaine_osm at posteo.de
Thu Jun 20 20:28:33 UTC 2019


Hello,

This is an interesting point. I always found healthcare2.0 (1) better 
structured than healthcare (2)? Could you explain your point?

 From my view,

healthcare leads to use different kind of items, taking examples:

healtcare=clinic is a type of healthcare facility, and 
healthcare=dentist is for me, a type of speciality. Then 
healthcare:speciality, specifiies a speciality. I would have liked to 
have healthcare=office (or even doctors) or 
consulting_room+healthcare:speciality=dentist. I totally understand that 
we want to point out a dentist office (and not a speciality) but I feel 
like things are mixed.

Then in healthcare2.0 proposal, there were a debate to use sepacialty 
instead of speciality... (3)

So I liked the proposal of health_facility:type= from healthcare 2.0 
especially because it takes into account health centre and health post. 
(which I guess is possible to add to healthcare=*?)

Looking forward to read your views on that, it always questionned me.

1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0

2 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare

3: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#Word_for_particular_areas_is_SPECIALTY_not_speciality

On 19/06/2019 20:06, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> In general, I appreciate the work that you are doing on this, but I
> don't think you should rely too much on the abandoned healthcare 2.0
> proposal - it wasn't very well though out.

-- 
Violaine_Do




More information about the Tagging mailing list