GIS
› OpenStreetMap
› General
›
Tagging
Childcare Tag
Locked
12
12
 
|
Hi, I'm new to this proposed tagging process etc, but I wanted to know what happened with this childcare tag proposal? Thanks, Alyssa. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Am 09.07.2013 17:35, schrieb alyssa wright:
Hey Alyssa > I'm new to this proposed tagging process etc, but I wanted to know what > happened with this childcare tag proposal? > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0 > I really do not see any major changes to the rejected version 1 in 2011: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare My main concern is that deprecating amenity=kindergarden will not work/be accepted and that it is not flexible enough, e.g. you can not use it with other amenities. Best would be to find a better key or prekey to get it working. If you want to read the discussions please have a look at the archive: version 1: spring 2011 version 2: may and june 2013 Cheers fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Sorry, I don't really follow. So some questions inline:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:35 PM, fly <[hidden email]> wrote: Am 09.07.2013 17:35, schrieb alyssa wright: Even if there aren't major changes to the proposals perhaps the needs of OSM have shifted since 2011. So not sure I follow on why a previous rejection dictates a current one.
Which tag isn't flexible enough (not sure what "It" refers to in your sentence). It seems like it takes into account the kindergarden scope as well as other childcare spaces, such as nursery, orphanage. It allows for more specificity than the existing kindergarden tab as well as cultural differences. Is it typical for amenity tags to be used with other amenities? Is there something in this proposal that stops such combinations? I've reviewed amenity=library and amenity=restaurant and don't see the difference in approach. But again, I'm new to this so it might be more subtle than I realize.
Again, what is "It" referring to here? And can you give some suggestions on how to make the proposal better?
Thanks, Alyssa.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by alyssa wright
There are no approved tags in OSM. You can use any tag you want, so if the childcare tags suit you, use them.
I agree that discussion and documentation are very helpful, but a few negative votes (even thousands of negative votes) cannot stop the tag being used. There are no tag police, no approval committee and no one with any right to force tags to conform. If you use an unusual tag it will simply be ignored by renderers and other data consumers, but if it becomes popular they may well start to use it. Tag use has to start somewhere and that is not simply a vote from a handful of unrepresentative people in the wiki. Cheers, Chris User: chillly alyssa wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to use approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage. This is consistent in what I've seen anecdotally with new members. This tag has yet to go up for a vote. How can it go up for a vote? But then why even have a voting process if you're saying extensibly saying it doesn't matter? Not trying to provoke a fight, just honestly confused as to the point of this process. Thanks, Alyssa. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Chris Hill <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Hi,
On 09.07.2013 19:13, alyssa wright wrote: > Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to > use approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage. Most new editors (in the "human being" sense) tend to use the tags offered by their editors (in the "software" sense). Which tags are offered by the editors is entirely up to the editor coding teams, and different editors will differ in their presets. There is no automatism that promotes approved tags to editor presets, and there are many non-approved tags in editor presets. > This is > consistent in what I've seen anecdotally with new members. This tag has > yet to go up for a vote. How can it go up for a vote? But then why even > have a voting process if you're saying extensibly saying it doesn't matter? Personally, I'd say that a tag going through a successful vote process at least means that it's not just something that a lone madperson has come up with without talking to others; it's a somewhat-discussed idea, and therefore more likely to grab the attention of mappers and editor writers, and therefore more likely to become used. I wouldn't say the process is useless, It is suitable for shining a light on a perceived need and possible solutions. The process does not, however, have the weight that some people attribute to it; just because 20 people voted on a new convoluted rule how to code opening times, doesn't mean every editor writer will now eagerly implement a new preset for that - and just because a proposal was shot down, doesn't mean that the tag won't be rendered. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [hidden email] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Thanks. I'm beginning to get a better sense of how things operate. Appreciate the patience. That said -- how does one move a proposed tag to a vote? Like can I call one right now?
Best, Alyssa. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi, _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
It would probably be good to re-open discussion (and add your voice to
it, particularly as you have an interest in using such a tag); after that, I think this one could be ready to vote on. __John On 7/9/13, alyssa wright <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks. I'm beginning to get a better sense of how things operate. > Appreciate the patience. That said -- how does one move a proposed tag to a > vote? Like can I call one right now? > > Best, > Alyssa. > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> On 09.07.2013 19:13, alyssa wright wrote: >> >>> Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to >>> use approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage. >>> >> >> Most new editors (in the "human being" sense) tend to use the tags >> offered >> by their editors (in the "software" sense). >> >> Which tags are offered by the editors is entirely up to the editor coding >> teams, and different editors will differ in their presets. There is no >> automatism that promotes approved tags to editor presets, and there are >> many non-approved tags in editor presets. >> >> >> This is >>> consistent in what I've seen anecdotally with new members. This tag has >>> yet to go up for a vote. How can it go up for a vote? But then why even >>> have a voting process if you're saying extensibly saying it doesn't >>> matter? >>> >> >> Personally, I'd say that a tag going through a successful vote process at >> least means that it's not just something that a lone madperson has come >> up >> with without talking to others; it's a somewhat-discussed idea, and >> therefore more likely to grab the attention of mappers and editor >> writers, >> and therefore more likely to become used. >> >> I wouldn't say the process is useless, It is suitable for shining a light >> on a perceived need and possible solutions. The process does not, >> however, >> have the weight that some people attribute to it; just because 20 people >> voted on a new convoluted rule how to code opening times, doesn't mean >> every editor writer will now eagerly implement a new preset for that - >> and >> just because a proposal was shot down, doesn't mean that the tag won't be >> rendered. >> >> Bye >> Frederik >> >> -- >> Frederik Ramm ## eMail [hidden email] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> >> > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by alyssa wright
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM, alyssa wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to use > approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage. This is > consistent in what I've seen anecdotally with new members. This tag has yet > to go up for a vote. How can it go up for a vote? But then why even have a > voting process if you're saying extensibly saying it doesn't matter? Because some people like voting. Some people like bureaucracy, and rules of order, and all that, and so we have one for them. What kind of free-for-all would it be if we didn't have room for those whose idea of a good time is having a lot of structure? - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
Thanks Serge for the clarification. Super helpful.
So as John suggested, I'll add my feedback to the existing thread and ask for a vote as I too enjoy voting. Best, Alyssa. On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Serge Wroclawski <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:13 PM, alyssa wright <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to use >> approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage. This is >> consistent in what I've seen anecdotally with new members. This tag has yet >> to go up for a vote. How can it go up for a vote? But then why even have a >> voting process if you're saying extensibly saying it doesn't matter? > > Because some people like voting. Some people like bureaucracy, and > rules of order, and all that, and so we have one for them. > > What kind of free-for-all would it be if we didn't have room for those > whose idea of a good time is having a lot of structure? > > - Serge > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by John Sturdy
John Sturdy <jcg.sturdy@...> writes:
> > It would probably be good to re-open discussion (and add your voice to > it, particularly as you have an interest in using such a tag); after > that, I think this one could be ready to vote on. > > __John > > On 7/9/13, alyssa wright <alyssapwright <at> gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks. I'm beginning to get a better sense of how things operate. > > Appreciate the patience. That said -- how does one move a proposed tag to > > vote? Like can I call one right now? > > > > Best, > > Alyssa. It is good to see that the proposals are picked up and continued. My advice would be to keep a short log of the proposals history. E.g. keep the old RequestForComments date and add your new after. For an example see; http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock Good luck /Johan J _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Serge Wroclawski-2
On 7/9/2013 5:42 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Because some people like voting. Some people like bureaucracy, and > rules of order, and all that, and so we have one for them. And some people like the idea that someone might eventually be able to consume the tags in a useful application. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by alyssa wright
2013/7/9 alyssa wright <[hidden email]>:
>> My main concern is that deprecating amenity=kindergarden will not >> work/be accepted and that it is not flexible enough, e.g. you can not >> use it with other amenities. +1 > Even if there aren't major changes to the proposals perhaps the needs of OSM > have shifted since 2011. So not sure I follow on why a previous rejection > dictates a current one. it doesn't dictate it, but as he wrote: using a new value for the amenity key in order to introduce a new tag for stuff that is already (at least partly) covered by different, well established and highly used values of the amenity key will not work (it is crying for an edit war). Usually proposals get rejected because they are badly drawn (while the opposite is not always true: some proposals pass despite being badly drawn), and yes, there are exceptions (all IMHO of course). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Hill-6
2013/7/9 Chris Hill <[hidden email]>:
> There are no approved tags in OSM. You can use any tag you want, +1, yes but you have to respect other people's work, and sometimes these two rules do conflict. > so if the > childcare tags suit you, use them. -1, I wouldn't use the amenity-tag as it will conflict with other users mapping (e.g. amenity=kindergarten, used 110K times). > I agree that discussion and documentation are very helpful, but a few > negative votes (even thousands of negative votes) cannot stop the tag being > used. There are no tag police, no approval committee and no one with any > right to force tags to conform. If you use an unusual tag it will simply be > ignored by renderers and other data consumers, but if it becomes popular > they may well start to use it. Tag use has to start somewhere and that is > not simply a vote from a handful of unrepresentative people in the wiki. You risk to be called a vandal when you start changing existing objects in order to suit your solitaire idea of how stuff should be tagged (I am not saying that you or Alyssa have solitaire ideas, but there are people like that, and there are limits to "every tag you like"). Of course you can use any tag you like, but sometimes you have to adopt your way of tagging to how other people tag, namely not re-using well established keys if there are existing objects you intend to tag which use tags with the same key but different values. For instance if you make up a new value for highway you will have to change existing highway values thereby removing these objects (at least temporarily if we presume your genius idea of a new highway class will later be adopted by more people) from most of the maps. There have been mappers in the past who acted like this, e.g. in Germany, and they have been blocked for editing the map with any tag they liked ;-) cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by alyssa wright
Am 09.07.2013 18:50, schrieb alyssa wright:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:35 PM, fly >> Am 09.07.2013 17:35, schrieb alyssa wright: > Sorry, I don't really follow. So some questions inline: My fault, I did not well explain, especially for someone new. - Sorry. >>> I'm new to this proposed tagging process etc, but I wanted to know what >>> happened with this childcare tag proposal? >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0 >>> >> >> I really do not see any major changes to the rejected version 1 in 2011: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare >> >> My main concern is that deprecating amenity=kindergarden will not work/be >> accepted and that it is not flexible enough, e.g. you can not use it >> with other amenities. > > > Even if there aren't major changes to the proposals perhaps the needs of > OSM have shifted since 2011. So not sure I follow on why a previous > rejection dictates a current one. The way, I read understand the rejection is, that the problem was in finding a good main tag (key) and/or deprecating kindergarden. But sure, opinions can shift and deprecating amenity=kindergarden would probably be helping cleaning up as there are definitely wrong mapped kindergardens > Which tag isn't flexible enough (not sure what "It" refers to in your > sentence). It seems like it takes into account the kindergarden scope as > well as other childcare spaces, such as nursery, orphanage. It allows > for more specificity than the existing kindergarden tab as well as > cultural differences. Is it typical for amenity tags to be used with > other amenities? Is there something in this proposal that stops such > combinations? I've reviewed amenity=library and amenity=restaurant and > don't see the difference in approach. But again, I'm new to this so it > might be more subtle than I realize. The main problem is that multi values are allowed on OSM with a semi-colon as separator but not many consumer are using it. I am not sure if a tag amenity=childcare;kindergarden would work and I would avoid it. > >> Best would be to find a better key or prekey to get it working. > > > Again, what is "It" referring to here? And can you give some > suggestions on how to make the proposal better? I was thinking about something like social_amenity=* (no good example!) or adding some key word in front separated with a colon. I do not find a good example right now, sorry, and I read a bit more and did change my mind in this point. --- In general there seems to be a mix up with amenity=kindergarden which was used cause by missing alternatives that is why I meanwhile think it would be worth to deprecate it. We already have amenity=social_facility which might even conflict with amenity=childcare. The proposed tags are not flexible enough to cover mixed situations. I know a kindergarden with some spaces for under 3-year-olds and after school assistance plus extra services on school holidays. Maybe a social_facility is even integrated in the project. The new proposal should cover this all. --- I do not believe in voting but in finding an agreement and a solution. This often needs more power and time. Please ask the original author about his proposal and either take over or develop it together. Please, first try to clean up and keep on discussing it. Cheers fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
Am 10.07.2013 12:57, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> 2013/7/9 alyssa wright <[hidden email]>: > it doesn't dictate it, but as he wrote: using a new value for the > amenity key in order to introduce a new tag for stuff that is already > (at least partly) covered by different, well established and highly > used values of the amenity key will not work (it is crying for an edit > war). Usually proposals get rejected because they are badly drawn > (while the opposite is not always true: some proposals pass despite > being badly drawn), and yes, there are exceptions (all IMHO of > course). +1 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by fly high
2013/7/10 fly <[hidden email]>:
>> Again, what is "It" referring to here? And can you give some >> suggestions on how to make the proposal better? > > I was thinking about something like social_amenity=* (no good example!) > or adding some key word in front separated with a colon. what about childcare=* (or childcare=yes if you don't want to define "main classes" of different childcare services) cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Am 09.07.2013 20:29, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> On 09.07.2013 19:13, alyssa wright wrote: >> Yes, people keep saying that. But as a new editor, my inclination is to >> use approved tags and not ones that are in the proposal stage. > > Most new editors (in the "human being" sense) tend to use the tags > offered by their editors (in the "software" sense). > > Which tags are offered by the editors is entirely up to the editor > coding teams, and different editors will differ in their presets. There > is no automatism that promotes approved tags to editor presets, and > there are many non-approved tags in editor presets. We try to get a comparison working. A promotion would be helpful but this could be done by anyone and the persons changing the wiki and/or proposers could fill tickets. In JOSM you can use extra presets. It is even possible to share your code with others through JOSM Trac. We hoped to get some extra presets and later on even patches for core but people seem to rather create a new preset for there needs than translating/updating/expending existing ones. >> This is >> consistent in what I've seen anecdotally with new members. This tag has >> yet to go up for a vote. How can it go up for a vote? But then why even >> have a voting process if you're saying extensibly saying it doesn't >> matter? > > Personally, I'd say that a tag going through a successful vote process > at least means that it's not just something that a lone madperson has > come up with without talking to others; it's a somewhat-discussed idea, > and therefore more likely to grab the attention of mappers and editor > writers, and therefore more likely to become used. Or no one cared about your proposal. One good thing about a nice proposal is that the documentation is done ! Weather it will stay in proposal name space or be approved and moved does not matter that much. > I wouldn't say the process is useless, It is suitable for shining a > light on a perceived need and possible solutions. The process does not, > however, have the weight that some people attribute to it; just because > 20 people voted on a new convoluted rule how to code opening times, > doesn't mean every editor writer will now eagerly implement a new preset > for that - and just because a proposal was shot down, doesn't mean that > the tag won't be rendered. +1 fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
Again, thanks for all the discussion. I'm following most of it. ;) I think...
Could I attempt to articulate what I consider the major confusion in the existing kindergarten tag? Perhaps this is already known, but perhaps an explanation could inspire a graceful resolution. In the US, (and according to the Oxford dictionary Australia and Britain), kindergarten is legally defined for 5 and 6 year olds. There are cases where parents have attempted to enroll a child of below 5 into kindergarten and have been legally refused. Instead there are a number of facilities that accommodate children below the age of 5. For a working family, a child below 5 could be under the care of a preschool (an informal group not typically associated with a school though sometimes affiliated with a religious organization), childcare (sometimes affiliated with a person's place of employment), a nursery (typically for very young children), among others. The use of the tag kindergarten as the umbrella description for such places of care doesn't make sense in my own cultural context. It would be like looking for a temple of Jewish denomination under the tag bar, because there is wine during services. Why would I look for nursery under kindergarten when the two -- culturally and legally -- are unrelated? It is my understanding that kindergarten means something very different in other places of the world. How does OSM account for such cultural differences? Perhaps the childcare proposal should not try to replace kindergarten, but instead try to disassociate childcare from the kindergarten umbrella? But I am not sure I know enough about tags to propose something appropriate. Thanks, Alyssa. On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote: > 2013/7/10 fly <[hidden email]>: >>> Again, what is "It" referring to here? And can you give some >>> suggestions on how to make the proposal better? >> >> I was thinking about something like social_amenity=* (no good example!) >> or adding some key word in front separated with a colon. > > > what about > childcare=* > (or childcare=yes if you don't want to define "main classes" of > different childcare services) > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
|
|
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:07 PM, alyssa wright <[hidden email]> wrote:
Again, thanks for all the discussion. I'm following most of it. ;) I think... It is my understanding that kindergarten means something very different in other places of the world. How does OSM account for such cultural differences? Perhaps the childcare proposal should not try to replace kindergarten, but instead try to disassociate childcare from the kindergarten umbrella? I think the clearest is to use "amenity=childcare", and document that the age range taken should be tagged (either with an "age-range=a..b" or with "age_start=a" and "age_end=b"), and document that "amenity=kindergarten" should be processed as an alias for this. (I don't *regard* it as an alias, but I'm happy to *process* it as one. particularly when the age range is made explicit separately.) This avoids using different words for age ranges, that might be interpreted differently in different places / cultures; and also avoids multiple-valued tags for facilities which cover what someone regards as several named age ranges. Apart from that, I'd generally go along with the proposals in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare2.0, particularly "pedagogy=" as I'm sure adherents of a particular system (e.g. Montessori) will be looking for that information. __John _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging |
«
Return to Tagging
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |