Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 12:26 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Sometimes the politicians promise it, tag that as > proposed:healthcare:equipment=MRI, start_date 2132 > just a note on this: the tag start_date refers to the described feature, if this is a proposed feature, the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

On 26/07/19 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole >: PS: waiting for the first posts requiring that the absence of equipment is taggable. well spotted, there clearly is a gap, as we can tag the absence of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole : > PS: waiting for the first posts requiring that the absence of equipment is > taggable. > well spotted, there clearly is a gap, as we can tag the absence of professionals, e.g. capacity:doctors=0 (not in use, but would be a standard

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Am 26.07.2019 um 02:19 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg: > There are still 2  problems with healthcare:equipment: > > 1) Healthcare:equipment is yet another new feature key for database > users to support, if tagged on its own node at the location of the > MRI. This requires Osm20gsql users like the main

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

sent from a phone > On 26. Jul 2019, at 02:19, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > 2) If you want to add this as a tag to an amenity=hospital, then you can’t > add both an MRI and a CT scanner, for example, since a key can only have one > value. > > So in that case you still need MRI=yes as an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

On 26/07/19 10:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: There are still 2  problems with healthcare:equipment: And how many with health_amenity:type ? 1) Healthcare:equipment is yet another new feature key for database users to support, if tagged on its own node at the location of the MRI. This requires

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

There are still 2 problems with healthcare:equipment: 1) Healthcare:equipment is yet another new feature key for database users to support, if tagged on its own node at the location of the MRI. This requires Osm20gsql users like the main Openstreetmap-Carto style to reload the whole planet

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Hello everyone! I completely agree with Warin that the *health_amenity:type* tag is pretty confusing as to what its referring to. I was trying to stay in line with what was proposed previously, but in retrospect it would be better to move away from previous efforts and vote in a tag that is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

This is about the equipment available? Using the principle of 'say what it is' ... medical_equipment=MRI ??? Assuming the tag is for equipment. Calling the key health_amenity:type "in use" is a stretch - 40 uses .. and most of these are for first aid kits! The next most popular is "scales".

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Hi Mark, I agree with your choice to specifiy which service are available in a given facility. This doesn't require to add :type in the name of the key. Such suffixe don't bring any information. Your proposal would be way better if you use health_amenit=MRI at least instead All the best

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

The intention of the tag is to specify physical equipment (health_amenity:type=MRI) and should be used in conjunction with amenity=clinic to show that the health facility contains that specialised equipment. This will enable mappers say that "this clinic contains an MRI" ᐧ On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

sent from a phone > Am 20.06.2019 um 08:15 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : > > This would also make it easier for > database users: they can just check for "amenity=hospital" + "mri=yes" > rather than doing a spacial query to find MRI nodes within or near an > amenity=hospital feature IMHO there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

4) health_amenity:type I think the key "healthcare" should be used instead of the new key health_amenity:type". If it's necessary to tag an MRI facility separately, then create a tag like "healthcare=mri". However, it may be more useful to use a tag like "mri=yes" on the main amenity=hospital