[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)
mhairi.ohara at hotosm.org
Fri Jun 21 05:17:26 UTC 2019
Thank you so much for the comments on the tags. This feedback is extremely
helpful to ensure we are going down the right path, as there are indeed
some details to work out. Hearing examples of how these tags (for example
the insurance:health) would potentially be applied in various countries
around the world, builds a better picture of the feasibility of putting it
into practice. There have also been many comments on the staff_count:doctor
and staff_count:nurse tags, regarding whether this pertains to the number
of staff on average per day at the health facility, or the total number of
staff that work there. And this is a very good point, which needs to be
clarified as it can really make the difference.
I also hear the suggestion that each of the proposed tags should have their
individual e-mails, so that this thread doesn't get too long and confusing.
The idea was to share them as one so that readers would be able to see that
they are all part of the large Global Healthsites Project, and then each
tag would have its own discussion on their dedicated 'Discussion' pages on
their proposed Wiki page. This would be the easiest to track the
comments/suggestions of each tag, and allow for some external (to this
thread) OSM user who comes across it on the wiki to follow the discussion
and history of it.
However, this is my first time proposing tags so I am very open to
suggestions. We are taking into account all the comments and will hopefully
come back with some collective thoughts on the suggestions within the next
couple of weeks. I wanted to say thank you to Joseph Eisenberg, who
provided me with some much needed guidance on how to approach this and
would love to jump on a call with you at some point when you're free. Funny
enough, I am based in the Lesser Sunda Islands but am currently travelling.
Very interested to hear what brought you out there!
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:30 PM Violaine_Do <violaine_osm at posteo.de> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
mhairi.ohara at hotosm.org
*Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
*Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
| twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
| facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
| donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging