[Tagging] free_standing_emergency_department, amenity or clinic ?

[Nita Rae Sanders]

On 5/2/19, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/2019 6:47 AM, Nita Rae Sanders wrote:
>
>> I am tacitly suggesting that these facilities be tagged as
>> healthcare=emergency_department, hospital=no, with an optional (and
>> likely present) operator=*, plus the usual addressing information.
>>
>> amenity shall not be used.
>>
>> That would both convey that they are an emergency department, that
>> they are not a full hospital, and who they are associated with.
>>
>> Comments ?
>
> Thanks for your efforts on this! Comments --
>
> * healthcare=emergency_department is simple and relatively unambiguous.
> However, because I've been contemplating a healthcare=department tag, I
> fear this could trigger a trend of healthcare=*_department tags instead
> (=radiology_department, =surgery_department, etc) which seems a little
> backward given the current trend towards using namespace prefixes for
> details of this level.

The term 'Emergency Department' is unique in it's use of department.
ED is a modern replacement for the term ER. Wikipedia has a page for
Emergency Department, but not for Surgery Department. Searching for
Radiology Department redirects to Radiology, so I think the comparison
is not quite apt.

> ...that said, as mentioned earlier, I'm not really convinced that
> healthcare=department + healthcare:speciality=emergency captures the
> true importance of these standalone facilities. So I'm not arguing for
> that either. (ie, I know we're supposed to ignore rendering, but *if*
> healthcare=department were ever to render on the default map I'd expect
> it would just be a red dot like healthcare=yes. I'd want the standalone
> ER to at least have the same prominence as healthcare=centre.)

Yes, see my remarks below.

> I don't have an alternate suggestion at the moment, so I'm open to
> healthcare=emergency_department if nothing better arises.
>
> * hospital=no strikes me as unnecessary -- and even potentially
> confusing. Because this is not the usual way of indicating whether a
> feature is a hospital, I can easily imagine a mapper thinking it means
> "is this a hospital-run facility?" rather than "is this itself hospital?"

See below.

> * regarding amenity, I actually think you might want to consider adding
> the amenity=doctors tag, at least transitionally. It's not strictly
> wrong, it's well within the traditional use of the tag (which, in the
> pre-healthcare=* era, has been basically "anything smaller than a
> hospital") and it will render. (Yes, I'm suggesting tagging for the
> renderer!! Get the tar and feathers! But it's not *incorrect* tagging,
> and I feel that showing map users the nearest emergency room,
> potentially saving lives, is worth the small ideological compromise.)

Absolutely, which is why I went with hospital=no, because the
canonical definition of an ED is valid both for free-standing and for
embedded within a hospital. I am envisioning something where all ED's
will be designated as such, even those embedded within the hospital.
It is an attempt to provide a common tagging system, exactly for the
purpose you point out … saving lives. I am open to other schemes to
distinguish between free_standing and embedded, something which allows
for an ED to be tagged as an ED. To be even more succinct, Shand's (in
Gainesville) has an embedded ED, and embedded ED for pediatrics, and
two free_standing ED units.

> All that aside, tag them in a way that makes sense to you, with the
> understanding that you or someone else may retag them when consensus is
> reached on this issue. And the usual caveats of "don't expect it to
> render until it becomes widely used" except doubly so with the uncertain
> schedule of support of healthcare=* tags.
>
>   J
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>