Proposal talk:Education Reform Alternative

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External discussion

The tagging mailing list has a thread starting 2017/11/18 about this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Maybe I missed it but from a quick look it is not obvious how new tagging scheme is better than current Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Better in that all educational things are gathered under the one key, where it can easily be seen what tags to apply to an educational feature. There is a need to add cram schools, swimming, dance, cooking schools etc. Much rather not have them all jumbled in with benches, bins etc. Much easier to teach OSM when there is a coordinated logic to it. Warin61 (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

double tagging

Maybe mention explicitly that it is OK to tag features using both current and new proposed scheme? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. When this tagging scheme starts being used, objects should be double-tagged. But at some point in time, we should move to education=* tagging only. Overall I really like this proposal because it replaces all the education amenities, which I dislike because I don't like everything being an amenity. --GeoKitten (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We can follow the proposal of tag:Police


A voting for tag:Police is under way. It is intended to map police facilities in a more specific manner. In this scheme, amenity=police will be maintained for public-facing police facilities(police stations) and police=* will be applied for other type of police facilities(like barracks and detention centers).

I'm sure similar approaches should be applied here. Why don't we keep using amenity=* for well-documented education features and start using education=* tags together with them? --Yumean1119 (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it would be confusing to have educational features under 2 keys particularly when one of them is named educational. Think about teaching a new mapper, a clear logical order is far easier to learn than one where some bits are other there while others are in yet another area. Warin61 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Tagging landuse=education so shared areas are easy to map.

Some schools share areas. Some schools have kindergartens alongside. Some universities share areas too with things like trade schools. It would be good to map the area as landuse=education and then add nodes, or ways if known, for the individual educational institutions within that area. There are some ~5,400 uses of landuse=school in the data base indicating a possible desire to map this way. Warin61 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The current proposal seems to have some support for shared landuse under How to tag universities and mixed campuses in this scheme, but that would reuse the education-key for landuse purposes. This risks overstretching the semantics of the new tagging-scheme; I would suggest keeping education=* for educational facilities, and consider adding landuse=education for the cases where it makes sense.
I fully support the idea of landuse=education, where needed, but often we can do without; like other amenities, a single area drawn and tagged with education=school containing just the single school described there, should imply its landuse. That means that for simple one-school-one-area purposes no complex mapping is needed. For mixed campuses and other types of shared grounds however, you could tag the grounds landuse=education and add the shared name and details of the grounds there. Separate educational entities can be mapped within that area, either as nodes in a sensible place or ways if they have recognisable boundaries (which can be a building or building part, but not necessarily).
In the Netherlands we have an ongoing trend of integrated child centres being created, where a primary school, day care, and sometimes a nursery join forces and share a building or set of buildings on grounds that often carry a shared name. The school and day care facility each again have their own identity and name, and tend to be legally distinct entities as well. Having landuse=education available in addition to the new education=* tags would solve a bunch of hacky mapping in my area. JeroenHoek (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree --TonyS (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Specialties and tests

Although I know it's not easy to substitute such a ubiquitous tag like amenity, I'm all in favour of organizing things (sooner the better) like this scheme proposes. I have a doubt: language school are very common, so why not separate language from crafts and add education=crafts and education=language? Also, having testcenter and test_preparation seems a bit confusing. Maybe a bit more refining on this would be better, since not all countries use or understand what ETS or ToEFL is. --AntMadeira (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree.Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

school tags

In an import I used things like `school:gender=male|female|mixed`, `school:enrolment` to indicate number of students, `school:selective` to tag selective schools, `school:service:native_language_support` where they had English as a second language classes (this is in a country where English is the first language), `school:specialty` where the school has some kind of speciality (eg. sports, technology, languages, music, arts). --Aharvey (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Age group tag

One of education_for:ages and min_age-max_age seems redundant. –Jengelh (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Target age and admissible age do not need to be same. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Training Centres

Locally to me there is a Fire Authority Training Centre which teaches fire fighters, in GB each Fire Authority tends to have its own training centre. Also many industries have training centres specifically for that industry - e.g. building, offshore oil & gas. Courses in these centres are of duration 1day to 1year. They can be open to public or restrictd to industry. A tagging scheme needs to include appropriate tagging for these industry training centres.
--TonyS (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I like this tagging proposal, but I also missed a general tag that could be used for other knowledge areas besides crafts, arts, cram and language. Would `education=specialty` be that tag? There are a lot of other non-formal educational institutions, like philosophy, agile methodologies and informatics school. --Wille (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
OK. I can reintroduce education=specialty then. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Administration and test offices

All in all I think this is a good step forward. However, the above categories don't really fit into the scheme. What I think unifies almost all the proposed tags is that an education=* is a place where I can go to learn (or rather study, in a fairly loose sense of the term for pre-kinder institutions and childcare) something. education=testcenter and education=test_office don't really fit but I would find them acceptable for lack of a better category. That is, if they get defined in a way everybody can distinguish -- as it is, I have no idea when to use one or the other. education=administrative doesn't fit at all and would be better covered by office=government. Mbethke (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Educative administratives can be public or private. Private school accreditors are examples of non-governmental educational administratives. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
In that case, office=* is still best. --Jeisenbe (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd go for office=company or something, too. What about the test facilities - is it that "office" is the officials creating and evaluating the tests and "center" the place where candidates go to be tested? If the latter exists as designated buildings in significant numbers it might make sense, the former would be covered just fine by whatever administrative tag we choose. preceding unsigned comment 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, test center is the building where candidates go in order to be tested. Test office is (usually highly secured) building that officials create and evaluate tests. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarify education levels

I like this proposal, but the education levels seem a bit confusing.

Why have education=graduate and education=university when we could just use education=school and school_level=primary/school_level=secondary/school_level=tertiary?

Especially unclear to me is why have graduate vs university.

Perhaps it would be better to have

  • education=basic - Regular schools must countries mandate people to attend and that most people are expected to have (usually middle school and high school).
  • education=higher - Colleges, universities and other higher education institutions (i.e. places that do research or grant degrees such as engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc.).
  • education=other - Educational institutions that don't fit any of the standard values.

and "remove" education=school, education=university and education=graduate.

--Gjvnq (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarify the value "religious"

The wording for education=religious seems a bit confusing. Is it intended for institutions that are religious or institutions that teach religion/theology?

For the latter case, it might be clearer to use education=religion instead of education=religious. (and it fits better with the other ones as the proposal has education=language instead of education=linguistic)

--Gjvnq (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned or rejected proposals ?

It would be very useful (not to say mandatory!) to have (for each of rejected proposals especially) at least a short summary how this proposal differs from them in order to avoid same pitfalls they had which led the their rejection. I.e. how are concerns that were raised in them addressed in this proposal --mnalis (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Follow the Proposal process

If you intend to use Proposal process, please try to follow it.

It is missing many parts from it: It was not announced on tagging mailing list (mandatory), it misses critical "Rationale" section, as well as "Proposal" and "External discussions" (I've added that one now for Discourse at least, but it should be filled with Tagging ML at least after it is posted), as well as majority of other sections, it does not follow most of "Due dilligence" section (what about existing tags? double-tag? deprecate? bot-autoedits?) etc. --mnalis (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)