On 22.04.2018 23:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 22. Apr 2018, at 22:23, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
It might have as much to do with tagging as trying to replace terms with
euphemisms. They're all social facilities.
They're all group homes. Then specify the target group.
I am getting more and more the impression that whole amenity=social_facility
tagging system was not a good idea. It would be so much simpler and clearer at
the same time if we used duck tagging. amenity=nursing_home / orphanage /
soup_kitchen / daycare / food_bank etc.
When needed you could still add the target group tag, but sometimes it is
already implied.
I still consider the social_facility tagging system a success. It allows a data consumer to quickly
distinguish e.g. an area with such facilities from an area with offices, without maintaining a large
list of duck tags from the crowded amenity key.
As for the part of the world I live in, Charles Dickens-style 'orphanages'
don't exist anymore.
Younger minors that are separated from their parents would be placed in foster families, or live in
family-style structures following the SOS-Kinderdorf model. Juveniles live in supervised shared
apartments (betreute Wohngemeinschaft). For the short term accommodation, there are group homes,
however they would not primarily distinguish whether the minor is an orphan or separated from their
parents for any other reason.
tom
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
