Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

2016-04-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
I think this proposal is quite elaborate and could be useful (with some
modifications) as a kind of summary page to find useful tags for a
particular school to be tagged as. It also contains useful concepts how
additional detail could be added in a formalized way. But I don't think
this is something that should get "approved" and then the whole tagging
system that already is established, would be changed accordingly and
hundreds of thousands of objects would get retagged – no.


education=* is currently tagged on 1000 objects. Did you check whether
these confirm with this proposal?
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/education#values

There are also quite some education-namespace-subkeys in use, that are not
yet in the education 2.0 proposal. Will these be integrated?
http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=education


This is quite a long list of tags.

I'll comment on some tags where I believe comments are most useful:



education =kindergarten
education =school
education =college
education =university

these appear to be all duplicates of amenity=... In your reasoning you
write that the advantage of moving these to a new key is avoiding to keep a
list of education related features in the amenity tags, but 'd rather keep
this list than retagging all those objects and change all those data
consumers.

I also believe that these are too few classes to differentiate the type of
institutions that occur (or you put them all under "school" and shift the
problem one level up). E.g. professional schools (in German: Berufsbildende
Schulen, further distinguished in Berufsschule and Berufsfachschule, see
here in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berufsbildende_Schule ),
Fachhochschulen (Wikipedia:en calls them vocational universities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_university ) and likely more.

What about research institutes? Not sure if they do educate, but I guess
some might be considered also educational.

Also on the lower end, there are some differentiations that I miss in your
scheme, e.g. daycare for children under the age of 3 (maybe not
educational?), daycare for children after the kindergarten or school
closes, ...

Further differentiation of schools (primary education, secondary education,
different types of them). There are quite a lot of different
particularities of schools if you look at the details (that are indeed
interesting for who wants to select a school), and those are mostly country
specific (or even sub-country specific, like in the case of Germany).

There are quite some amenity=childcare (5k+) in use right now, but the
proposal doesn't mention it:
http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=amenity%3Dchildcare

There are also 191 amenity=preschool in use:
http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=amenity%3Dpreschool



education =subdivision

there are also these keys in use:
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/faculty#overview
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/institute



education_for:*ages*
Have a look at the introduced tags min_age and max_age that are dealt with
here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten



education_fee=*
Why should we prepend the "education_" part to the well introduced key
"fee" (also suggested on the kindergarten page linked above)? Are there
different fees we would potentially want to tag for educational features?



education_system:de_standard=yes
This is not working, because a country code is not sufficient in Germany:
there is no "German" standard, every Land has it's own standard, as
education is the task of the Länder.



education_for:*child* children (4-11 years) education_for:*adolescent*
adolescents (12-19 years) education_for:*adult* adults (20 years and above)
education_for:*senior* senior (60 years and above) education_for:*boy* boys
(males below 20) education_for:*girl* girls (females below 20)
education_for:*man* adult men (above 20) education_for:*woman* adult women
(above 20)



I don't think we should create age groups like this. These will always be
completely arbitrary and depend on countryspecific legislation and will not
fit well in a tagging scheme intended to map the whole world. E.g. adults
starting at the age of 20 is not something that sounds familiar to me,
generally there are different relevant ages that determine this step, e.g.
age of majority, voting age, legal drinking age, marriageable age, age of
consent, ...
Have a look here where the age of majority is set in different countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority#Countries_and_subdivisions
(note that the majority seems to set it at 18, although I didn't sum the
populations up). I believe the min_age and max_age concept offers much more
flexibility.
Similar considerations are valid for the other age group tags.
There is also an inhe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

2016-04-13 Thread Shishkin Aleksandr 

I have made clarifications about current tags on proposal page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0#Current_tagging_system
Since education=* tags just duplicate amenity=school, college etc, they 
fit proposal well. Subtags like *education*:students_female 
 has no 
description and I just do not understand what they mean: only female 
students allowed? or female students allowed as well as male? Is it true 
for the whole institution or just for some educational programs? This 
proposal does not concerns such undecribed tags so I assume should not 
affect them.
This proposal describes *only* educational services and facilities, 
research services and institutions is huge topic and thus should have 
their own proposal. As well daycares are not educational institutions 
and that's why they are not in the proposal.
Also keep in mind that institution could possibly provide not only 
educational services. For example massage parlor could teach masseurs, 
but they main service is still massage. Because of that some tag without 
"education:*" could be mistaken to apply to other services: education of 
masseurs could be for people above 18, but massage services are for 
people of any age.
If there is no country standards but only Federal Land (for Germany) 
standards, its is possible to insert Land ISO code instead of countries. 
But I am sure that is the matter of discussion of German community. 
Situation similar to boundary=protected_area, every community should 
decide which set of tags in the proposal appropriate for their country 
and in which cases should be used.
There is age discrimination in education. Some schools (especially music 
ones) do not allow children above or below certain age. It is unfair, 
but imho people should know that there is age restrictions in such 
educational facility. Age categories taken from Healthcare 2.0 proposal, 
maybe they do not fit. I will consider it.
I also agree about boarding and fulltime extended, I'll add this in the 
proposal.


I think mailing list could be not really suitable for such lengthy 
discussions. I invite you to discuss details on the discussion page, if 
you wish:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Education_2.0

13.04.2016 12:44, Martin Koppenhoefer пишет:
I think this proposal is quite elaborate and could be useful (with 
some modifications) as a kind of summary page to find useful tags for 
a particular school to be tagged as. It also contains useful concepts 
how additional detail could be added in a formalized way. But I don't 
think this is something that should get "approved" and then the whole 
tagging system that already is established, would be changed 
accordingly and hundreds of thousands of objects would get retagged – no.



education=* is currently tagged on 1000 objects. Did you check whether 
these confirm with this proposal?

http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/education#values

There are also quite some education-namespace-subkeys in use, that are 
not yet in the education 2.0 proposal. Will these be integrated?

http://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=education


This is quite a long list of tags.

I'll comment on some tags where I believe comments are most useful:



education =kindergarten
education =school
education =college
education =university

these appear to be all duplicates of amenity=... In your reasoning you 
write that the advantage of moving these to a new key is avoiding to 
keep a list of education related features in the amenity tags, but 'd 
rather keep this list than retagging all those objects and change all 
those data consumers.


I also believe that these are too few classes to differentiate the 
type of institutions that occur (or you put them all under "school" 
and shift the problem one level up). E.g. professional schools (in 
German: Berufsbildende Schulen, further distinguished in Berufsschule 
and Berufsfachschule, see here in German: 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berufsbildende_Schule ), Fachhochschulen 
(Wikipedia:en calls them vocational universities: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_university ) and likely more.


What about research institutes? Not sure if they do educate, but I 
guess some might be considered also educational.


Also on the lower end, there are some differentiations that I miss in 
your scheme, e.g. daycare for children under the age of 3 (maybe not 
educational?), daycare for children after the kindergarten or school 
closes, ...


Further differentiation of schools (primary education, secondary 
education, different types of them). There are quite a lot of 
different particularities of schools if you look at the details (that 
are indeed interesting for who wants to select a scho

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

2016-04-13 Thread Shishkin Aleksandr 
Some of this tags has analogues in proposal, but in proposal they are 
put in the system.
nursery=yes - could this tag be just replaced with min_age or 
education_level from proposal?

after_school in proposal it is educational_form:fulltime_extended
preschools is obviously refers to education_level:preschool
special_care does not described detailed enough to understand how to tag 
such services in other countries (in proposal it is described with 
education_profile:special, but it also needs details)
And family_center is too sketchy. What exactly parents are taught? How 
to tag it in case when there is fee for such education, but no fee for 
kindergarten itself? How to apply this tag in other countries? It also 
conflicts with max_age=7 tag, because this facility obviously 
educates/consults parents above this age.


13.04.2016 01:21, Holger Jeromin пишет:

=?UTF-8?B?0KjQuNGI0LrQuNC9INCQ0LvQtdC60YHQsNC90L
TRgCAoU2hpc2hraW4gQWxlksandr=29?=  Wrote in message:

Proposal for the new more flexible and extendable education tagging system:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0
Please, leave the comments on the discussion page.

  
you should take a look at the German kindergarten optional tags.

  These were worked out a few weeks ago in the German forum
  


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

2016-04-13 Thread Marc Gemis 
just some other tags that are related to this proposal

- amenity=driving_school
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddriving_school
  do you keep this one for backwards compatibility ?

- leisure=dance + dance:teaching=yes
  do you replace de dance:teaching ?

- amenity=music_school
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmusic_school
  keep for backwards compatibility ?

- ISCED (level) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED
  does it fit somewhere in the scheme ? I think the British community
used this tag during their quarterly school mapping project.

regards

m

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Ale
 wrote:
> Some of this tags has analogues in proposal, but in proposal they are put in
> the system.
> nursery=yes - could this tag be just replaced with min_age or
> education_level from proposal?
> after_school in proposal it is educational_form:fulltime_extended
> preschools is obviously refers to education_level:preschool
> special_care does not described detailed enough to understand how to tag
> such services in other countries (in proposal it is described with
> education_profile:special, but it also needs details)
> And family_center is too sketchy. What exactly parents are taught? How to
> tag it in case when there is fee for such education, but no fee for
> kindergarten itself? How to apply this tag in other countries? It also
> conflicts with max_age=7 tag, because this facility obviously
> educates/consults parents above this age.
>
> 13.04.2016 01:21, Holger Jeromin пишет:
>>
>> =?UTF-8?B?0KjQuNGI0LrQuNC9INCQ0LvQtdC60YHQsNC90L
>> TRgCAoU2hpc2hraW4gQWxlksandr=29?= > jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> Wrote in message:
>>>
>>> Proposal for the new more flexible and extendable education tagging
>>> system:
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0
>>> Please, leave the comments on the discussion page.
>>>
>>   you should take a look at the German kindergarten optional tags.
>>   These were worked out a few weeks ago in the German forum
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=boat (supersedes shop=marine, shop=*chandler, etc)

2016-04-13 Thread anarcat 
On 2016-04-12 04:12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-04-12 9:35 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring
> :
>
> shop=boat is a bad choice for marine/chandlery stores. A better
> tag is shop=boat_supplies as this more completely describes the
> type of store. Few chandleries sell actual boats, so just as we
> have shop=car and shop=car_parts to differentiate between two
> quite different entities, so should we use shop=boat for places
> that sell boats and shop=boat_supplies for chandlers/marine
> stores.
>
> +1, AFAIR this was also part of the outcome of a recent discussion
> about this topic on tagging@osm
> I suggest to reread this discussion and modify the proposal
> accordingly.

boat_supplies was *never* mentionned in this thread prior to this post,
as far as I remember. chandler and ship_chandler were, and both didn't
reach consensus, from what I could tell, because they were too
localized. I have tried to explain this in the proposal, it seems I have
failed to get that point through.

Now people are coming up with completely new proposals out of the blue,
that do not match anything currently in use on the map.

I wish someone would take this proposal and do something with
it. Frankly, at this stage I am a little exhausted with the process and
will let other deal with deciding what the bike shed color should be.

Good luck,

A.

-- 
Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love. Love is not music.
Music is the best.  - Frank Zappa


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=boat (supersedes shop=marine, shop=*chandler, etc)

2016-04-13 Thread Dave Swarthout 
@anarcat,

It is frustrating to try to achieve consensus, especially when people pop
in with new ideas now and again. I want to thank you for your work on this
project. I liked the original tag you suggested and for my own work will
probably use it seeing as there are no rules about such behavior and
because consensus is almost impossible to achieve.

Best regards,
Dave

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 6:28 AM, anarcat  wrote:

> On 2016-04-12 04:12:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > 2016-04-12 9:35 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring
> > :
> >
> > shop=boat is a bad choice for marine/chandlery stores. A better
> > tag is shop=boat_supplies as this more completely describes the
> > type of store. Few chandleries sell actual boats, so just as we
> > have shop=car and shop=car_parts to differentiate between two
> > quite different entities, so should we use shop=boat for places
> > that sell boats and shop=boat_supplies for chandlers/marine
> > stores.
> >
> > +1, AFAIR this was also part of the outcome of a recent discussion
> > about this topic on tagging@osm
> > I suggest to reread this discussion and modify the proposal
> > accordingly.
>
> boat_supplies was *never* mentionned in this thread prior to this post,
> as far as I remember. chandler and ship_chandler were, and both didn't
> reach consensus, from what I could tell, because they were too
> localized. I have tried to explain this in the proposal, it seems I have
> failed to get that point through.
>
> Now people are coming up with completely new proposals out of the blue,
> that do not match anything currently in use on the map.
>
> I wish someone would take this proposal and do something with
> it. Frankly, at this stage I am a little exhausted with the process and
> will let other deal with deciding what the bike shed color should be.
>
> Good luck,
>
> A.
>
> --
> Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom.
> Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty.
> Beauty is not love. Love is not music.
> Music is the best.  - Frank Zappa
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Education 2.0

2016-04-13 Thread Shishkin Aleksandr 
I assume that tags related to education that have been approved and do 
not have "education" key should remain (not sure what to do with 
unapproved tags). ISCED level already is in he proposal, however I 
propose this tag as optional.


13.04.2016 22:15, Marc Gemis пишет:

just some other tags that are related to this proposal

- amenity=driving_school
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddriving_school
   do you keep this one for backwards compatibility ?

- leisure=dance + dance:teaching=yes
   do you replace de dance:teaching ?

- amenity=music_school
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmusic_school
   keep for backwards compatibility ?

- ISCED (level) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED
   does it fit somewhere in the scheme ? I think the British community
used this tag during their quarterly school mapping project.

regards

m

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Шишкин Александр (Shishkin Ale
 wrote:

Some of this tags has analogues in proposal, but in proposal they are put in
the system.
nursery=yes - could this tag be just replaced with min_age or
education_level from proposal?
after_school in proposal it is educational_form:fulltime_extended
preschools is obviously refers to education_level:preschool
special_care does not described detailed enough to understand how to tag
such services in other countries (in proposal it is described with
education_profile:special, but it also needs details)
And family_center is too sketchy. What exactly parents are taught? How to
tag it in case when there is fee for such education, but no fee for
kindergarten itself? How to apply this tag in other countries? It also
conflicts with max_age=7 tag, because this facility obviously
educates/consults parents above this age.

13.04.2016 01:21, Holger Jeromin пишет:

=?UTF-8?B?0KjQuNGI0LrQuNC9INCQ0LvQtdC60YHQsNC90L
TRgCAoU2hpc2hraW4gQWxlksandr=29?=  Wrote in message:

Proposal for the new more flexible and extendable education tagging
system:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0
Please, leave the comments on the discussion page.


   you should take a look at the German kindergarten optional tags.
   These were worked out a few weeks ago in the German forum

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging