[talk-ph] talk-ph Digest, Vol 67, Issue 19

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Dear Steeve,

Thank you very much for the additional information. This is very helpful.

I was actually thinking of asking you for more information about the DOH
code because I want to confirm if this facility code is intended to be the
official ID of each health facility, that it is stable (it doesn't change
even if a health facility is renamed or maybe relocated?), and it is meant
to be used by the public (it isn't just an internal ID for DOH's purposes).

Based on your information, I think there is indeed great value in tagging
the health facilities in OSM with the NHFR facility code since you have
stated it is meant to be the official standard. Now the only thing needed
to discuss is what tag to use inside OSM. (I personally vote for ref=*
since the NHFR code is confirmed to be the standard.)

As for your second point, I think the licensing issue is still not yet
resolved so there is no sharing of effort yet to locate all health
facilities. (Nota bene, We are actually having a similar licensing
discussion with the Department of Education regarding the list of schools
they have provided us). We want to really make sure that there is no
problem with copyrights and licensing because OSM is a free/open project.
As shown by the free and open source software movement, it all works
because there is stable base of free/open licensing regime that serves as
the basis. OSM wants to be similarly successful by being careful with data
licensing.

Regards,
Eugene

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Steeve Ebener <
steeve.ebener at gaia-geosystems.org> wrote:

> Dear Erwin and Eugene,
>
> Few things I think important to clarify here as I am at the origin of the
> request to add the DOH code into OSM and also directly working on the
> National Health Facility Registry (NHFR) with the DOH.
>
> The reason for the initial request is two folds:
> 1. Improve the value of OSM dataset when it comes to health facilities as,
> for the moment, it is very difficult to link the OSM data to any other
> health facility level related data either because the name of the facility
> is not reported or the spelling is different from the official one;
> 2. Demonstrate the added value for the DOH to start working with OSM to
> complete their current gap in terms of health facility location.
>
> Starting with the second point, by not involving the DOH in the project
> NOAH is unfortunately generating some duplication of efforts as you might
> be locating again health facilities for which the DOH already have a
> precise location, through the hospital licensing process for example,
> instead of concentrating efforts your efforts on the remaining gaps.
>
> When it comes to the first point, it is important to know that the NHFR is
> the standard, or list of references, when it comes to health facilities in
> the country. This is for example why it is being used for the joint
> DOST-DOH eHealth program.
>
> In addition to that:
> - the NHFR is more comprehensive than PhilHealth dataset because it also
> covers Barangay Health Stations;
> - Not only PhilHealth accreditation number but also DOH SPEED codes and
> licensing numbers are in the process of being included into the NHFR. By
> using the DOH code you are directly having access to the other ones.
>
> I hope the above will encourage the OSM community to include the DOH code
> in its database as data is being collected. Actually, and if possible, I
> would encourage you to also follow the spelling reported in the NHFR when
> it comes to the health facility name as this is the official one.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steeve
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20140223/b5ba7648/attachment.html>