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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 12:26 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

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



just a note on this: the tag start_date refers to the described feature, if
this is a proposed feature, the 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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 >:


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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 26. Juli 2019 um 10:17 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

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



well spotted, there clearly is a gap, as we can tag the absence of
professionals, e.g. capacity:doctors=0 (not in use, but would be a standard
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Simon Poole]

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  > 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 <61sundow...@gmail.com
> > 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
>> mailto:m...@healthsites.io>> 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"
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg
>> > > 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
>> 

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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

Re: [Tagging] 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 > 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 <61sundow...@gmail.com
> 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
mailto:m...@healthsites.io>> 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"
ᐧ

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> 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

Re: [Tagging] 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 
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 <61sundow...@gmail.com> 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  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"
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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  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 

Re: [Tagging] 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 <61sundow...@gmail.com> 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  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"
>> ᐧ
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> 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  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
>>> > 

Re: [Tagging] 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 > 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"
ᐧ

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
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 mailto:mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org>> 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
> mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org 
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian 

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

[François Lacombe]

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  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"
> ᐧ
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg 
> 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  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
>> > mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org
>> > @mataharimhairi
>> >
>> >
>> > *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
>> > *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
>> > web 
>> >  |  twitter 
>> >  |  facebook 
>> >  |  donate 
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards
> Mark Herringer
> www.healthsites.io
> https://medium.com/healthsites-io
> @sharehealthdata 
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mark Herringer]

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

On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg 
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  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
> > mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org
> > @mataharimhairi
> >
> >
> > *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> > *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> > web 
> >  |  twitter 
> >  |  facebook 
> >  |  donate 
> >
>


-- 
Kind regards
Mark Herringer
www.healthsites.io
https://medium.com/healthsites-io
@sharehealthdata 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


IMHO there 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  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
> mhairi.oh...@hotosm.org
> @mataharimhairi
>
>
> *Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team*
> *Using OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Response & Economic Development*
> web 
>  |  twitter 
>  |  facebook 
>  |  donate 
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging