Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
On 20.04.2020 16:52, Paul Allen wrote: > Amenity is much larger and much more of an eclectic hodge-podge than > social_facility. I'm not even sure that amenity=social_facility is a good > idea, but at least you can then refine it with social_facility=*. Moving > do amenity=nursing_home just makes amenity a bigger mess than it > already is. And a nursing home is a social facility, not some sort of > recreational POI for the general public. amenity=social_facility with subkeys social_facility=* and social_facility:for=* was voted in favour in 2010 with an unusual 96% on a quorum of 28. The only vote against was just about dropping the amenity key above. It turned out as a big help to keep values out of the top-level amenity=* space. The proposal explicitly excluded facilities for the "treatment of specific acute medical conditions", giving hospitals as example. With about a dozen values that have significant usage I cannot see that there were "too many different features lumped together", quite in contrast to amenity=* itself. The problem comes with the the dynamics of amenity=nursing_home and social_facility=group_home: If you look into the history graphs [1] you see that in 2011 there was apparently a massive import of amenity=nursing_home; which was partially removed in 2012, and partially converted into social_facility=group_home and social_facility=assisted_living social_facility=group_home was an over-ambitious attempt, coming from the examples of the social_facility proposal, to tag a "Retirement Home" as amenity=social_facility + social_facility=group_home + social_facility:for=senior, which blurred the distinction of which homes provide nursing. The new value social_facility=nursing_home provides clarity and is becoming organically popular without mechanical changes. It would be helpful if somebody could provide insight in the 2011 import and the 2012 mechanical edit, and by which criteria the nursing_homes were separated into group_home vs. assisted_living. It appears to me that in particular the imported objects nobody knows and nobody cares about. Tom [1] https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/social_facility/nursing_home&***/amenity/nursing_home&***/social_facility/group_home&***/social_facility/assisted_living ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 21:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 20. Apr 2020, at 20:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean > miscellaneous. > > This is not a good thing. > > this sounds as if you were implying it was different some time ago? It has been bad for a long time. That is no reason to make it worse. > Anyway, it is offtopic in this discussion unless you propose to move to a > different key > Not off-topic at all. You're proposing flattening out amenity, therefore pointing out that amenity is already overloaded is entirely on topic. > > I need > > a better reason than the editors you choose to use mean the rest of us > > should suffer from your choices. > > It’s not about _me_, it is about everybody who types tags rather than > clicking them. > I type tags rather than clicking them. And, like you, I hate typing more than I have to. What happens with a decent UI is I type a couple of letters and the editor narrows down the list of choices in the drop-down to match what I've typed, I can then scroll through a small number of items with the arrow key and use tab to select the correct one. All done through the keyboard. Except when there's a really long list because the key or value has been flattened to the point of being severely overloaded. I remain unconvinced that your preferences for tagging would actually make anybody's life easier. Not even your own. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
sent from a phone > On 20. Apr 2020, at 20:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean miscellaneous. > This is not a good thing. this sounds as if you were implying it was different some time ago? Anyway, it is offtopic in this discussion unless you propose to move to a different key > Instead of being presented with dozens (potentially hundreds) of > amenity values to scroll through one can select social facility and get a > sub-menu. This is easier and faster. if menus are used, they can get structured in whatever way makes sense, they do not depend on the tags. Which tags are used is important when you type them yourselves, in preset menus you have to rely on the people that curate these and their translation I need > a better reason than the editors you choose to use mean the rest of us > should suffer from your choices. It’s not about _me_, it is about everybody who types tags rather than clicking them. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 18:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > >> Because "amenity" has come to mean "miscellaneous." >> > > this is trolling, > No it isn't. I'm entirely serious. Amenity has come to mean miscellaneous. This is not a good thing. because amenity=social_facility social_facility=food_bank still has amenity > as the "main" key, if we made it amenity=food_bank we would not change > anything in this regard. > Yes, it would change matters a lot. It means that hierarchical menus are possible. Instead of being presented with dozens (potentially hundreds) of amenity values to scroll through one can select social facility and get a sub-menu. This is easier and faster. > > >> Maybe you need a better editing app on your mobile device. :) >> > > I am quite satisfied with both, > I am not satisfied with flattening hierarchies just to keep you happy. I need a better reason than the editors you choose to use mean the rest of us should suffer from your choices. the mobile and the desktop OSM editing solution I have chosen, and in both > instances, it is very tedious to type tags like "social_facility:for" and > "social_facility", which both start the same for many characters > If we flatten everything out, moving everything directly under amenity so that we don't need sub-tags, then that will mean MORE values start with the same letters. Unless we make each value a UID such as 6b*3kjn. Flattening makes matters worse for you, not easier. BTW, good editors narrow down selections as you type. Or present you with sub-menus based upon hierarchies. , while all the other tags hardly require more than 1 or 2 letters, > sometimes 3-4, e.g. highway is typically completed from "hi" and amenity > from "am". Any solution where tags are typed in, will benefit from more > concise tag names. > And will suffer from the sort of flattening you propose. Because the more things that get unique amenity values rather than being sub-tagged, the more values will have several first letters in common. Note that conciseness isn't required with a good user interface. Whatever other merits your preferred editing solutions have, a good UI for tag selection does not appear to be one of them. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 19:01 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Because "amenity" has come to mean "miscellaneous." > this is trolling, because amenity=social_facility social_facility=food_bank still has amenity as the "main" key, if we made it amenity=food_bank we would not change anything in this regard. > Maybe you need a better editing app on your mobile device. :) > I am quite satisfied with both, the mobile and the desktop OSM editing solution I have chosen, and in both instances, it is very tedious to type tags like "social_facility:for" and "social_facility", which both start the same for many characters, while all the other tags hardly require more than 1 or 2 letters, sometimes 3-4, e.g. highway is typically completed from "hi" and amenity from "am". Any solution where tags are typed in, will benefit from more concise tag names. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 17:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > > Why on earth should we have this second level tagging for social > facilities but have almost all the other tags in a flat system (not > amenity=educational_institution, educational_institution=school/university, > and not shop=service_provider service_provider=hairdresser / car_repair), > Because "amenity" has come to mean "miscellaneous." without the need to type longish keys with underscores on mobile devices ;-) > Why not have everything under amenity? Roads, footpaths, buildings, shops, parks, playgrounds, hospitals, etc? Maybe you need a better editing app on your mobile device. :) -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > apart from workshops, it is this overly broad meaning of "social facility" > that doesn't make the tag super useful. In the end you will have to add I agree with this overbroad notion. I am very much in favor of a top-level tag with subtags when all of the subthings are clearly part of some larger concept. But social_facility seems to be not like that. I said this in an earlier thread, but "group home" is a loaded word and it would be good to avoid using it in a way that applies incorrect connotations. Specifically, in the US it is not used for a place where people live because they are unable to care for themselves fully because of normal aspects of aging (physical inability and dementia). Also, there are places "independent living", and I think calling those "social facility" is wrong. Overall, I'd be in favor of completely removing the use of social facility in tagging, as it carries too much baggage and historical confusion compared to its value. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:41 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I would suggest deprecating social_facility=hospice, and I'm also not > convinced that social_facility=nursing_home is better than > amenity=nursing_home. interestingly, these 2 tags also haven't been in the original approved proposal for the social facility tagging, here is some context from 2016 wrt to nursing home: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-June/029454.html Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
Am Mo., 20. Apr. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > > Is it or is it not a social facility within the broad meaning of the term? > I'd say that it is. It's a facility. It's social (in both meanings: > people > interact socially and it is a social service). > apart from workshops, it is this overly broad meaning of "social facility" that doesn't make the tag super useful. In the end you will have to add secondary tags to make sense of this tag (social_facility=* in the first place, a tag that says what this is about). For example "nursing homes" were already sufficiently defined and quite established with amenity=nursing_home, no need to make it amenity=social_facility, social_facility=nursing_home. Similarly "hospice". The "social_facility:for" subtag is a useful addition to our tags, I completely agree, but the whole amenity=social_facility social_facility=foo tag could be deprecated in favor for amenity=foo tags and it would not be a loss, rather a gain. Why on earth should we have this second level tagging for social facilities but have almost all the other tags in a flat system (not amenity=educational_institution, educational_institution=school/university, and not shop=service_provider service_provider=hairdresser / car_repair), without the need to type longish keys with underscores on mobile devices ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 15:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Also, amenity=nursing_home is still more common than > social_facility=nursing_home. At least in the USA, a real "nursing > home" is a "skilled nursing facility" with RNs always on staff, who > supervise patients getting their medications and physical therapy > treatment etc - it's sometimes a step-down from a hospital, sometimes > long-term care when you don't really need a full hospital. It's more > healthcare than social. While there are non-medical "nursing homes", > these are under "assisted_living" or "group_home". > We have those distinctions in the UK. Care home versus residential home/ retirement home. Well, the names blur somewhat. We have places with RNs on staff to provide medical supervision. We have places where the staff are needed for non-medical care like feeding/bathing/whatever. We have retirement homes that are more than just condos because there are elements of shared facilities - individual rooms but shared dining or something like that. > > I would suggest deprecating social_facility=hospice, Sounds reasonable to me. Others will undoubtedly disagree. and I'm also not convinced that social_facility=nursing_home is better than amenity=nursing_home. > Amenity is much larger and much more of an eclectic hodge-podge than social_facility. I'm not even sure that amenity=social_facility is a good idea, but at least you can then refine it with social_facility=*. Moving do amenity=nursing_home just makes amenity a bigger mess than it already is. And a nursing home is a social facility, not some sort of recreational POI for the general public. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
Looking more into this, I think the problem is with the residential / inpatient facilities. While social_facility=hospice was documented a few years ago, amenity=hospice was much older, and healthcare=hospice is several times more common now even though it was not documented. A hospice is a palliative care facility or service for patients who are terminally ill, and it is certainly a healthcare facility, so I would support using amenity= or healthcare= hospice. Also, amenity=nursing_home is still more common than social_facility=nursing_home. At least in the USA, a real "nursing home" is a "skilled nursing facility" with RNs always on staff, who supervise patients getting their medications and physical therapy treatment etc - it's sometimes a step-down from a hospital, sometimes long-term care when you don't really need a full hospital. It's more healthcare than social. While there are non-medical "nursing homes", these are under "assisted_living" or "group_home". I would suggest deprecating social_facility=hospice, and I'm also not convinced that social_facility=nursing_home is better than amenity=nursing_home. -- Joseph Eisenberg On 4/20/20, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:54, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> >> social_facility=ambulatory_care - "An office for workers who support >> the living needs of those who can't fully support themselves" >> >> Shouldn't that be "office=ambulatory_care" or something else under >> "office"? Why is an office a social_facility? >> > > Is it just an office where people shuffle paperwork about ambulatory care > or a place where ambulatory care is provided? I see a distinction. But > if ambulatory care is provided then it should be under healthcare as an > outpatient facility. > >> >> =outreach "A non-residential facility that provides social welfare >> services such as advocacy, counseling, job placement, veterans >> services, housing placement, wellness programs, leisure activities." - >> Also not residential, not for people who require supervision. This >> should be a different tag. >> > > Office if it's just paperwork and clients visiting the office. > > "social_facility=workshop" "A non-residential work facility that >> primarily employs people with disabilities. Also includes workshops >> for rehabilitating or juvenile offenders." - This should be tagged as >> whatevery kind of "craft=" or other tag is appropriate for the >> workplace. If they make furniture, it should be craft=furniture. It's >> very strange to tag this the same as a group home or hospice. >> > > Is it or is it not a social facility within the broad meaning of the term? > I'd say that it is. It's a facility. It's social (in both meanings: > people > interact socially and it is a social service). See, for example, > https://hutsworkshop.org/about-us A quote from > https://hutsworkshop.org/huts-workshop > > we provide opportunities for exploration and support in all manner of arts > and crafts, including pottery, woodwork, jewellery making, painting, > sewing, weaving and needlework. We also offer support and learning > opportunities in IT and basic cooking skills. We run regular trips to local > venues and activities to widen experiences and offer inspiration for > creativity. > > So more than one craft (a lot more) plus things other than crafts. > > =clothing_bank/food_bank/soup_kitchen/dairy_kitchen - facility that >> distributes clothing/food/meals for cheap/free for poor people. These >> are clearly "social services" in the Western cultural sense, but I >> think it would make much more sense to tag these differently than a >> residential group home or hospice or nursing home. >> > > Yep. Maybe amenity=social_services. And maybe the workshop above would > then fit under that but I'd argue that since it provides a measure of day > care > it may be better where it is. I don't think staying overnight is a > necessary > precondition of a social facility, but some sort of supervision for hours > does. A soup kitchen is unsupervised (in the social services sense). > > -- > Paul > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 13:54, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > social_facility=ambulatory_care - "An office for workers who support > the living needs of those who can't fully support themselves" > > Shouldn't that be "office=ambulatory_care" or something else under > "office"? Why is an office a social_facility? > Is it just an office where people shuffle paperwork about ambulatory care or a place where ambulatory care is provided? I see a distinction. But if ambulatory care is provided then it should be under healthcare as an outpatient facility. > > =outreach "A non-residential facility that provides social welfare > services such as advocacy, counseling, job placement, veterans > services, housing placement, wellness programs, leisure activities." - > Also not residential, not for people who require supervision. This > should be a different tag. > Office if it's just paperwork and clients visiting the office. "social_facility=workshop" "A non-residential work facility that > primarily employs people with disabilities. Also includes workshops > for rehabilitating or juvenile offenders." - This should be tagged as > whatevery kind of "craft=" or other tag is appropriate for the > workplace. If they make furniture, it should be craft=furniture. It's > very strange to tag this the same as a group home or hospice. > Is it or is it not a social facility within the broad meaning of the term? I'd say that it is. It's a facility. It's social (in both meanings: people interact socially and it is a social service). See, for example, https://hutsworkshop.org/about-us A quote from https://hutsworkshop.org/huts-workshop we provide opportunities for exploration and support in all manner of arts and crafts, including pottery, woodwork, jewellery making, painting, sewing, weaving and needlework. We also offer support and learning opportunities in IT and basic cooking skills. We run regular trips to local venues and activities to widen experiences and offer inspiration for creativity. So more than one craft (a lot more) plus things other than crafts. =clothing_bank/food_bank/soup_kitchen/dairy_kitchen - facility that > distributes clothing/food/meals for cheap/free for poor people. These > are clearly "social services" in the Western cultural sense, but I > think it would make much more sense to tag these differently than a > residential group home or hospice or nursing home. > Yep. Maybe amenity=social_services. And maybe the workshop above would then fit under that but I'd argue that since it provides a measure of day care it may be better where it is. I don't think staying overnight is a necessary precondition of a social facility, but some sort of supervision for hours does. A soup kitchen is unsupervised (in the social services sense). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?
My opinion is that there are too many different features lumped together under "amenity=social_facility" This came up with the "Refugee Site" proposal, where it was noted that sometimes amenity=social_facility + social_facility=shelter is sometimes used for residential facilities that services for refugees. But most social_facility sites are not much like a refugree camp. There is a very wide range of different features. Common values of the subtag social_facility=: The first few are fairly closely related: they are all places 1) where people live 2) because they cannot live independently: social_facility=group_home - includes retirement homes for elderly, group homes for orphans, halfway houses for people with addictions, recently released prisoners, etc. (also previously included nursing homes) social_facility=nursing_home - previously (and still often) tagged amenity=nursing_home hospice - palliative care for dying patients assisted_living - less supervised nursing/group home These next 2 values share one of the two common characteristics day_care - For people who cannot live independently but need supervison - but is not residential (not overnight). shelter - temporary residence (e.g. homeless shelter), also sometimes used for refugees - but unlike the values above, these folks can live indendently, they just don't have money or resources. But then the next few values have nothing in common with the previous, except that they all have something to do with "social services" or "social work" in some cultural contexts. These values are less common: social_facility=ambulatory_care - "An office for workers who support the living needs of those who can't fully support themselves" Shouldn't that be "office=ambulatory_care" or something else under "office"? Why is an office a social_facility? =outreach "A non-residential facility that provides social welfare services such as advocacy, counseling, job placement, veterans services, housing placement, wellness programs, leisure activities." - Also not residential, not for people who require supervision. This should be a different tag. "social_facility=workshop" "A non-residential work facility that primarily employs people with disabilities. Also includes workshops for rehabilitating or juvenile offenders." - This should be tagged as whatevery kind of "craft=" or other tag is appropriate for the workplace. If they make furniture, it should be craft=furniture. It's very strange to tag this the same as a group home or hospice. =clothing_bank/food_bank/soup_kitchen/dairy_kitchen - facility that distributes clothing/food/meals for cheap/free for poor people. These are clearly "social services" in the Western cultural sense, but I think it would make much more sense to tag these differently than a residential group home or hospice or nursing home. Would others be in favor of separating out the non-residential social services from the full-time residential facilities? This would be similar to how we use different tags for hospitals (inpatient - you stay overnight) and doctor's offices / clinics (outpatient). -- Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
