Hello,
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
3:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#Word_for_particular_areas_is_SPECIALTY_not_speciality
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.
--
Violaine_Do
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
