I personally like when OSM definitions are linked to other references, especially a well-known source like wikipedia.
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+service: social service n. 1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work. 2. Services, such as free school lunches, provided by a government for its disadvantaged citizens. Often used in the plural. or Merriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20service : an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically : organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or disadvantaged) I can add these references to the tag page if people consider them better form. As for removing the daycare reference in social_facility, I agree that replacing it with a link to an approved childcare feature makes sense. There are service organizations that focus on children and I wouldn't be surprised if some provided daycare, but this is such a specific service that I think a node is better described by combining tags. So a social facility that provided childcare service could use: amenity=childcare social_facility:for=child age=2-17 operator=ABC Kids -- Sean On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:59, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually I perceive as well some reference to class struggle, > especially in the introduction of the linked wikipedia article: > "pursuit of social welfare, social change and social justice". I > suggest to remove this reference, as it is not even helpful in its > generic definition, and "social change", "social justice" and to some > point also welfare are not about what it is, but why it is (so it > belongs to philosophy / politics / economy and not to OSM). It is also > not helpful to have the basic definition ("A social facility is any > place where social services, as defined here, are conducted:") linked > to a dynamic page ;-), and I think in OSM we could well live without > the "as defined here" part. > > Given all this I agree that there is not yet a suggested value, but > there is daycare as an example: "social_facility:for=child e.g. > daycare center for children", i.e. following the logics of the cited > page there would be social_facility=daycare, social_facility:for=child > to be amended. > > Following the logics of your proposal instead, there could be an > amendment to your proposal saying that daycare should be removed from > the example section of social_facility:for (or a link to your tag > added. Removing "daycare" from social_facility would not be a problem > because there is not yet a single object with this tag in the database > (according to taginfo), > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging