Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Joseph Eisenberg
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Am 20.06.2019 um 08:15 schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> 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 is a point in distinguishing these as a property (facility has at least one MRI machine) vs. explicitly tagging a part of the facility as the MRI department/institute, especially if they are distant. Both should be possible.

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Mark Herringer
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>


--

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

François Lacombe-2
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

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>


--
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Warin
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".
Fist aid kits have the tag emergency=first_aid_kit ... which is more popular (170) despite it being a "draft".

No, I don't think is is "in use" nor has it been used in a sensible way. Probably because "type" can mean anything.

health_facility:type has the same problem, despite being more popular, uses are for
dispensary
office
clinic
hospital
etc


On 14/07/19 23:18, François Lacombe wrote:
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

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>


--
Kind regards
Mark Herringer



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Mhairi O'Hara
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 straight forward and easy to understand (says what it is).

The main aim for the tag is to encapsulate that its related to health equipment, so how about healthcare:equipment?

Kind regards,

Mhairi

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:43 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
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".
Fist aid kits have the tag emergency=first_aid_kit ... which is more popular (170) despite it being a "draft".

No, I don't think is is "in use" nor has it been used in a sensible way. Probably because "type" can mean anything.

health_facility:type has the same problem, despite being more popular, uses are for
dispensary
office
clinic
hospital
etc


On 14/07/19 23:18, François Lacombe wrote:
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

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>


--
Kind regards
Mark Herringer


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Mhairi O'Hara
Technical Project Manager
@mataharimhairi



Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development
web
 |      twitter
 |      facebook
 |      donate

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

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 Openstreetmap-Carto style to reload the whole planet database before this key can be supported for rendering, routing or search applications. Using amenity=MRI or healthcare=MRI would be easier for current database users to support and it’s shorter for mappers to type.

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 addition key to tag on an existing facility. I suspect this tagging will be more common than mapping the MRI separately, and it certainly will be more common for ultrasounds, which are on wheels (casters) usually and can move around the hospital.

Joseph

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:01 AM Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 straight forward and easy to understand (says what it is).

The main aim for the tag is to encapsulate that its related to health equipment, so how about healthcare:equipment?

Kind regards,

Mhairi

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:43 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
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".
Fist aid kits have the tag emergency=first_aid_kit ... which is more popular (170) despite it being a "draft".

No, I don't think is is "in use" nor has it been used in a sensible way. Probably because "type" can mean anything.

health_facility:type has the same problem, despite being more popular, uses are for
dispensary
office
clinic
hospital
etc


On 14/07/19 23:18, François Lacombe wrote:
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

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>


--
Kind regards
Mark Herringer


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Mhairi O'Hara
Technical Project Manager
@mataharimhairi



Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development
web
 |      twitter
 |      facebook
 |      donate
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Warin
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 Osm20gsql users like the main Openstreetmap-Carto style to reload the whole planet database before this key can be supported for rendering, routing or search applications. Using amenity=MRI or healthcare=MRI would be easier for current database users to support and it’s shorter for mappers to type.

Not all users will want to support heath care.
While it may be easy in the short term to place everything into the amenity key or some other key this creates problems in the long term. And, even if placed into these other keys, support may still not be given.

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.

Not true, a few keys support multiple values e.g. sport=soccer;rugby;baseball


So in that case you still need MRI=yes as an addition key to tag on an existing facility. I suspect this tagging will be more common than mapping the MRI separately, and it certainly will be more common for ultrasounds, which are on wheels (casters) usually and can move around the hospital.

In the first instance I think you are correct in that this will be popular as a sub tag under a hospital (or other =feature).
And I think most renders will ignore these sub tags of whatever method.

I would think portable equipment would not be tagged. Much like cars.
Doctors, nurses and portable equipment can be transported in. And can be changed fairly quickly, not something that OSM handles well.
An MRI is not so easy to transport and get working.



Joseph

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:01 AM Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 straight forward and easy to understand (says what it is).

The main aim for the tag is to encapsulate that its related to health equipment, so how about healthcare:equipment?

Kind regards,

Mhairi

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:43 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
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".
Fist aid kits have the tag emergency=first_aid_kit ... which is more popular (170) despite it being a "draft".

No, I don't think is is "in use" nor has it been used in a sensible way. Probably because "type" can mean anything.

health_facility:type has the same problem, despite being more popular, uses are for
dispensary
office
clinic
hospital
etc


On 14/07/19 23:18, François Lacombe wrote:
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

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 26. Jul 2019, at 02:19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> 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 addition key to tag on an existing facility.


you need this anyway if you want to be able to tag both and distinguish between them: the availability of these machines as a property of something else (e.g. a medical studio or hospital) and the machine as a stand-alone feature.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


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 Openstreetmap-Carto style to reload the whole planet database before this key can be supported for rendering, routing or search applications. Using amenity=MRI or healthcare=MRI would be easier for current database users to support and it’s shorter for mappers to type.

That applies equally to health_amenity:type, in any case anybody wantig nto support outlandish keys will be running with hstore enabled.



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. 

Multi-value keys are in widespread use, and when they represent lists totally unproblematic.

Simon

PS: waiting for the first posts requiring that the absence of equipment is taggable.


So in that case you still need MRI=yes as an addition key to tag on an existing facility. I suspect this tagging will be more common than mapping the MRI separately, and it certainly will be more common for ultrasounds, which are on wheels (casters) usually and can move around the hospital.

Joseph

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 4:01 AM Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 straight forward and easy to understand (says what it is).

The main aim for the tag is to encapsulate that its related to health equipment, so how about healthcare:equipment?

Kind regards,

Mhairi

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:43 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
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".
Fist aid kits have the tag emergency=first_aid_kit ... which is more popular (170) despite it being a "draft".

No, I don't think is is "in use" nor has it been used in a sensible way. Probably because "type" can mean anything.

health_facility:type has the same problem, despite being more popular, uses are for
dispensary
office
clinic
hospital
etc


On 14/07/19 23:18, François Lacombe wrote:
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

François

Le jeu. 11 juil. 2019 à 21:10, Mark Herringer <[hidden email]> a écrit :
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"

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
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 or the radiology department within the medical
centre - this tag would let mappers say that "this hospital contains
an MRI" without requiring mappers to precisely locate the MRI
equipment within the building. 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


On 6/20/19, Mhairi O'Hara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello Tagging Mailing List,
>
> We would like to bring your attention and comments on the proposal for the
> staff_count:doctors and staff_count:nurses tags, which helps identify the
> number of doctors and nurses at a given health facility [1][2]. The
> operational_status tag, which has been proposed before and I would like to
> highlight again, as this is used to document an observation of the current
> functional status of a mapped feature (i.e. health facility) [3]. The
> health_amenity:type tag is also being proposed, as this indicates what type
> of speciality medical equipment is available at the health facility [4] and
> the final tag is insurance:health which describes the type of health
> insurance accepted at a health facility [5].
>
> Some of these are already in use but have never been formally accepted, or
> properly described as to how they should be applied, which we would like to
> try and achieve if possible for the Healthsites.io project. Please take a
> look at the proposal pages on the OSM Wiki, as well as the Global
> Healthsites Mapping Project page [2] which is at the core of the recent
> work focused on creating a health facility data model. We look forward to
> discussing these proposals on the respective Wiki discussion pages.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Mhairi
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors
> [2]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses
> [3]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status
> [4]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:health_amenity:type
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:insurance:health
> [6]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project#Tag_Proposal
>
>
> --
> *Mhairi O'Hara*
> Project Manager
> [hidden email]
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web <http://hotosm.org/>
>  |      twitter <https://twitter.com/hotosm>
>  |      facebook <https://www.facebook.com/hotosm>
>  |      donate <http://hotosm.org/donate>
>


--
Kind regards
Mark Herringer


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

dieterdreist
Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <[hidden email]>:
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 way) or staff_count:doctors=0 or doctors_num=0 (both keys have several hundred uses, and for doctors_num 0 and 00 are half of all used values, while for staff_count:doctors the values 0 and 0.0 are even accounting for two thirds of all values (65%), so this actually IS of concern to mappers.

;-)

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

Warin
On 26/07/19 19:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <[hidden email]>:
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 way) or staff_count:doctors=0 or doctors_num=0 (both keys have several hundred uses, and for doctors_num 0 and 00 are half of all used values, while for staff_count:doctors the values 0 and 0.0 are even accounting for two thirds of all values (65%), so this actually IS of concern to mappers.


Usually with "health services" the problem is that their is an indication of something, where there is no usable presence.

Usually the equipment is either broken down or there is no trained operator .. so tag it disused:healthcare:equipment=MRI

Sometimes the politicians promise it, tag that as proposed:healthcare:equipment=MRI, start_date 2132

Similar tagging can be used for the hospitals themselves.


I know of one local hospital that I would refuse to go to, and the ambulances also try to go elsewhere for their patients safety!
Another more distant hospital where the registrar took a few hours on a plane flight to have his broken leg attended to at another hospital. Of course he did not tell the air crew, it was a normal commercial flight.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - health_amenity:type

dieterdreist
Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 12:26 Uhr schrieb Warin <[hidden email]>:
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 start_date in my understanding would be the date the proposal was first published, not when the feature will change to an active feature.

Cheers,
Martin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging