Another stakeholder in the Philippine health system, Philhealth, uses their own reference identification for accredited [1] and un-accredited [2] health facilities in the Philippines.
The French OSM mappers [3] tagging convention is like ref:PH:doh or ref:PH:phic, for DOH and PHIC/Philhealth, respectively. I think "ref:PH:*=*" is less ambiguous than "nat_ref:*=*" A bit off-topic, but it was interesting to find out that the key ref=* may be used to identify companies using their tax identification numbers [4]. [1] https://gis.philhealth.gov.ph/view_hosp1.php [2] https://gis.philhealth.gov.ph/view_nonaccre.php [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:FR:* [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:vatin *Erwin Olario* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - » email: erwin@ <er...@ngnuity.net>*n**GNU**it**y**.**net*<http://ngnuity.net/> | gov...@gmail.com » mobile: (PHL): +63 908 817 2013 | (USA): +1 347 746 9461 » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com>wrote: > My understanding is that you only add another term to the key name (ref=* > --> ref:isil=*) if it is highly likely that some other ID or coding system > has a higher priority for the basic ref=* tag. > > For example, I think each World Heritage Site has an assigned reference > code by UNESCO. For example, Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park has the reference > code 653bis[1], but we should probably not tag it as ref=653bis because the > national park may have its own coding system in the Philippine Government. > So the tag could be ref:whc=653bis as proposed[2]. > > On the other hand, we have many basic ref=* keys such as: > > - int_ref=* (international) > - nat_ref=* (national) > - reg_ref=* (regional) > - loc_ref=* (local) > - etc. > > So we could also tag Tubbataha as int_ref=653bis. > > Basically, as I understand it, adding another term to the key name is only > done as a last resort. The only advantage I can see with using ref:doh=* is > that its meaning is easier to understand. But that can be easily addressed > with proper PH tag documentation in the OSM Wiki. > > Anyway, I'd like to know what other people think so that we have a rough > consensus on what key to use to tag the DOH facility code on hospitals in > OSM. > > Choices: > > ref=* > nat_ref=* > ref:doh=* > > [1] http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/653 > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:41 PM, maning sambale < > emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Can I suggest that we use either ref=* or nat_ref=* tag for the DOH >> facility >> > code assigned to each hospital? This tag is intended for indicating >> > reference numbers/codes/IDs as assigned by some official authority. >> > >> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref >> > >> > For example, East Avenue Medical Center is assigned the code 504. So we >> > should add ref=504 or nat_ref=504 to the hospital POI. >> >> Sure! I actually tested that yesterday >> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/54025002). >> I have to correct my tagging and also remove the zeroes. >> >> From the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref), the ref >> tag is used in various ways by adding namespace. Should we used >> ref:doh=504 like the isil ref >> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:isil)? >> > > > _______________________________________________ > talk-ph mailing list > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph > >
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
