[Tagging] RFC: school:for (to map special education and other ambiguous cases)

[Timothy Noname]

I don't like long lists. Personally I would prefer a tagging scheme that
would accommodate anything which the school does which is not offered by
all schools

speciality:autism=yes/no
speciality:deaf=yes/no
speciality:sports=yes/no
speciality:arts=yes/no
Etc


On Tue, 21 Jun 2022, 08:28 Minh Nguyen, <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
wrote:

> Vào lúc 07:55 2022-06-20, Pieter Vander Vennet đã viết:
> >       Inclusive schools
> >
> > If a school is legally required to accept students with some disability
> > or extra care need, this does not change anything to the fact that this
> > is an *ad hoc* policy for this student. If it is called /Individual/
> > Education/service plan, the ad-hoc nature is hidden in plain sight.
> >
> >  From another perspective, having a school legally require to accept
> > these students makes the school still mainstream, which would again
> > indicate that /no/ special tag is needed.
> >
> > Note that I did add a paragraph to make this explicit, but this was
> > already stated within the actual proposal.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> >       Eduction:*
> >
> > Oh, F***. The "education:*" looks like yet another undocumented can of
> > worms...
> >
> > I am however considering to move this proposal from *school:for* to
> > *education:for* as this will also enable this tagging on other
> > educational features such as kindergartens, universities, colleges, ...
> >
> > Furthermore, *education:**facilities_for* might /also/ be good, but then
> > we lose the ability to indicate that normal-abled students are taught on
> > a school to. (There are some schools where  you /need to have/ a
> > diagnosis of something to be able to enter)
>
> education:for=* was documented as part of the rejected Education 2.0
> proposal. [1] The proposal was rejected in part for tossing out a lot of
> common existing tags, and also for its verbosity, requiring mappers to
> use many subkeys to describe the most common scenarios. But your
> proposal won't necessarily meet the same fate as long as it takes a more
> cautious approach.
>
> >       Normal people might never use this data!?
>
> I'm unsure if this is a response to my earlier post, but this is very
> far from the point I was trying to make. To clarify, I suggesting that
> we'd need a more compelling use case to justify a tagging scheme for an
> inclusive school's *degree* of inclusiveness, whereas there's already a
> practical use for indicating dedicated facilities. On that point, we
> seem to agree.
>
> [1]
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0#Education_for
>
> --
> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220621/ab25f52e/attachment.htm>