Proposed features/Multiple schools on one ground

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Multiple schools on one ground
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: SafetyIng
Tagging: landuse=education
Applies to: area
Definition: introduce landuse=education for grounds with multiple educational amenities (e.g. kindergarten, school) instead the amenity* tag doubled on ground and a node
Statistics:

Rendered as: color like amenity=kindergarten,school,college,university
Drafted on: 2021-04-02
RFC start: 2021-04-02
Vote start: 2021-05-07 13:57 UTC
Vote end: 2021-05-21 13:57 UTC

Proposal

Educational landuse is land used by educational amenities/institutions; normaly by 'formal institutions' (such as kindergartens, schools and universities), sometimes there could be the grounds of 'informal institutions' (such as language, music, ... schools) when they have a brighter ground.

  • The tag landuse=education is approved for tagging areas/the ground occupied by these educational amenities.
  • The tag amenity=school is approved for tagging only the school (one school = one element).
  • The tag amenity=school is deprecated for tagging (school-)grounds that are shared between two or more institutions, with no distinguishable borders between them.
  • The tag landuse=school is deprecated.

Rationale

Schoolground with three schools on it (OSM-Map), school ground and school-nodes mapped with amenity=school

According to the wiki-page of amenity=school it's discribes the school at itself. It can be mapped as node or area of the ground of the school. So there is a problem there when several schools share a school site/ground and make so a "school complex", sometimes the schools use the same buildings. Such complexes existing in several countries, like Germany, UK, USA, Portugal and Netherlands.

As workaround there is the use of amenity=school on the full complex-ground. Often without a name. But it is not a valid use for what the amenity=school tag is created. This was a misuse of amenity=school, because there were no other useful possibility. But it is therefore necessary in such cases to differentiate between the school grounds and the schools themselves. (E.g. to count schools in an area). It is also not possible to identify a nodeamenity=school inside a areaamenity=school with the Overpass API, because amenities without name=* are not interpreted as areas. [1]

For this distinction it is suggested to mark the country used for educational institutions with "landuse = educational". However, if the school grounds of a single school are provided with the amenity = school tag, then this usage already implies the landuse = educational. (See Tagging section)

For every school there should be only one element with amenity=school.

The same can happen if, for example, a kindergarten and a school share the ground. There is also used landuse=school, but especially with regard to the last case and the more general situation, landuse=education is to be preferred and should be deprecated


Tagging

The landuse=education can be used in different ways:

  • it may be used, if the bounds of a single educational facility's grounds are tagged with the corresponding amenity=* tag- This is not strictly necessary because landuse=education is already implied by these educational amenity=* tags. (one educational amenity on one ground)
  • It should be used for a ground, that several schools share. In this case, each amenity is mapped individually as a node. (multiple educational amenities on one ground)

In certain cases the ground can also be tagged with name=* (e.g. in Germany several schools are in one school centre/school complex - German: "Schulzentrum").

For every school there should be only one element with amenity=school. (Also at schools in a site-Relation)

Example of usage at a single school
Example of usage at a school complex with "shared ground"

Rendering

At suggestion the landuse could be rendered with the same background color, as usual educational amenity. After this proposal a feature request at the OSM-Carto GitHub.

carto-rendering for educational amenities

Transition strategy

For the time to transition: There is a suggestion to start adding landuse=education to current areas with amenity=school until enough uses lead to render support in Carto. It also gives other renderers time to change. When there is render support, the tag amenity=school can removed and landuse=education remains on the area.

This could be realized with a MapRoulette-Challenge. Please feel to discuss this on the discussion page section.

Features/Pages affected

External discussions

direct mentioned

Previous discussions

see also Referring sources on Tag:landuse=education

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

The result is Approved with 56 votes for, 12 votes against and 5 abstentions.

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. "I think not." My reasoning(s) are (rather exhaustively) sprinkled about the Discussion page. --Stevea (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Tracker51 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. landuse=education is a good solution for the situations that lead to multiple amenity elements being mapped for a single school --Jmapb (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I like the introduction of a new landuse=* value for educational areas. We also have the case where multiple schools share the same area in my country so this proposal would come in handy. —seav (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The proposal would have made sense years ago. As the proposal does not indicate any working transition strategy, nor does it give a quantitative estimate of the number of cases that will need (manual!) retagging. So we will end up with two different schemes in parallel, which only increases the confusion --voschix (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Landuse is a physical feature that cannot be represented by an amenity --Cascafico (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. The sentence "each amenity is mapped individually as a node" is unnecessarily restrictive and, if taken seriously, would lead to a loss of information compared to using an area covering the entire (non-shared) building. But that's a comparatively small detail that I predict mappers will be smart enough to ignore. --Tordanik 20:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It seems to me that this proposal would replace amenity=school tags for school areas or amenity=university on university areas with a much more generic landuse=education. It seems to be a loss of information to remove the information whether it is a kindergarten or an university from the area. A school ground of several facilities combined also is likely a feature, which would not be represented well by landuse. Reducing the individual school areas to nodes would ignore the fact that you often can delimit them (often they are only using a well defined part and not the whole area) --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Dieterdreist: The way I'm reading this proposal you can (perhaps even should) still tag schools and universities as areas, and nothing needs to change for the vast majority of cases where one educational facility has its own grounds. landuse=education then should be used where multiple educational facilities share grounds/campus/area. Is this something that may need clarification from @SafetyIng:? --JeroenHoek (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The current system of amenity-inside-amenity seems to be working well enough, and this will likely just add a second tagging scheme that data consumers need to keep track of. --Carnildo (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Carnildo: Isn't it the opposite? By providing mappers with the tagging to tag school grounds, data consumers won't have to handle the amenity-in-amenity case, which rather than being a supported tagging solution is really tagging for the renderer. Fixing broken tagging seems preferable to blocking a tag to promote ambiguous use of another. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I really see the need for this kind of tagging scheme but I have two remarks which make abstain for voting. 1) As some already mentioned, there needs to be some kind of subtagging to indicate the education type (e.g. university, college). 2) I think the definion should change to "use landuse=education to tag the school grounds" and that the amenity tags should only be used on the adres nodes or buildings according to the tagging rules for a country. In that way, adres information is also correctly assigned to the school. In that way you create conistency where landuse=education is used to tag school grounds and not only when there are multiple schools on one ground --Cartographer10 (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you really need it when it can be known from the amenity=* inside? Multiple school types could be present. isced:level=* may be better for this. As a side note, ideally situation of multiple campuses for a school should be handled in the future, and this would have an education complex feature added (instead of an abstract landuse=*. ---- Kovposch (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Well education=* should atleast be optional for those who want to use it and indeed, maybe it cannot be used always. Maybe you can even introduce the tag education=campus for grounds with a campus. At this example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729390932#map=16/51.9839/5.6640, I would use landuse=education + education=university|campus. This is clearly a university campus with amenity=school because it consists of many buildings with different purposes and not only education --Cartographer10 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Further specifying landuse=education via an additional education=* tag sounds natural given that this is done for landuse=residential as well with residential=*. This proposal doesn't block such an extension, and I think education=campus makes sense as a refinement of landuse=education. education=* looks to be in some minor use as a (deprecated?) alternative to amenity=*, but it shouldn't clash with what you are proposing. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Sorely needed for grounds shared by educational facilities, such as the Dutch Integraal Kindcentra (IKC, other national equivalents exist) and campuses shared by colleges/universities/research institutes. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It's definitely needed, especially when the schools share same ground (and even the same building!), such as old grade schools which split to middle school and elementary school after the education reform in 2012, but retained the same ground and building even though their administration is legally separate from each other. Mappinglander (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. lots of those areas have a name. Tagging them amenity=school+name=* is clearly wrong, because it is not the name of a school, but the name of the campus. The proposed tagging makes it possible to map this correctly. --Bstein (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --MoiraPrime (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This will solve a problem I've been annoyed by for at least 4 years now, and allow for much cleaner representation of schools in osm. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I'm already tagging this way --Adavidson (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. ---- Kovposch (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --WoodWoseWulf (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC) While rare, I have come across several situations in which distinct preschools, K-12 (or equivalent) schools, and colleges have shared their grounds with no clear delineation between individual institutions due to shared classrooms and other facilities. These locations are typically named something along the lines of "Placetown Education Precinct" while the individual institutions maintain their own executives, name and identity. This proposal would help resolve tagging confusions associated with such locations.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This will resolve the combined high school, college or K+12, college into single education landuse area within the same grounds, with the clearer representation of the educational institutions (schools, universities, colleges) here in the Philippines and elsewhere across the globe. --DP24 12:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This scheme is a solution to some situations I face while mapping --Gatalin (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. maro21 19:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. For every school there should be exactly one element with amenity=school, current scheme has no sane solution for school complexes. amenity=school inside amenity=school representing school complex rather than school is an ugly incorrect tagging for the renderer. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Rassilon (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I have used this tag for a landuse that contains two separate educational amenities before and think it's a very logical tagging option. Usually in this case there would be no discernible separation of the amenities so I think the two (or more) amenity nodes for each school make sense. But even if there is a boundary within the single territory, as far as I understand there would be nothing wrong with making the larger area landuse=educational without a name and then still separate amenity areas as well. --Ivars (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I actually like the landuse tag, but I don't like the implication that all amenity=school should be nodes. Maybe seeing a larger set of example tagging of more complex situations would be helpful. Also the transition strategy does not seem thought through. --Neuhausr (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Allow me to comment on your vote, since this was brought up in other comments. I believe that nothing forbids someone from tagging an entire building (area) with amenity=school instead of creating a point. Points will be "mandatory" in case of several schools in the same building. Anyway, this could be better explained in a future wiki and I don't see why it should cast a no vote. Also, it doesn't have to have a transition plan. Mappers will continue to map as they think it's better, and if they encounter cases where this scheme could apply, then they'll have the support of the community in the form of a well explained wiki. Regards.--AntMadeira (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood, but tagging as area still would be OK - just each school area would need to cover area of school (for example one wing of building) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Being a bit fond of greens, how do you suggest, will that affect rendering of schoolyards (Pausenhof?) I suppose, landuses are stacked lower than amenities, so the proposed tag might actually improve on rendering decision. I see a pitch in the sample picture but otherwise mostly yellow ground. --Hungerburg (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Formally speaking this is not a concern that can be addressed by a tagging proposal, but on the whole landuse-tags render below most greenery, so I would expect any rendering in Carto in the future to not form a regression compared to the rendering of amenity=school. Ideally, Carto can simple use the same background as amenity=school (which SafetyIng suggests here), but that is a call for the Carto maintainers to make of course. The existing rendering of landuse=religious would make the chance to see rendering eventually hopeful though.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I like this, and think it handily addresses an issue that I've encountered many times. --jdcarls2 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I agree with those who want to maintain the possibility to tag schools/kindergartens etc. as areas/multipolygons (not necessarily nodes) if they can be unambiguously located. --Antabeer (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. landuse=education fits well next to landuse=residential etc. and could be further specified with the already used education=* just like with the other landuses specifying terrain with buildings. This fixes the inconsistencies with multiple schools on the same campus. I am however slightly concerned about adding more complexity for starters, it's not likely they will understand the reasons behind this tagging scheme right away. Maybe, if approved, we need to default something like amenity=school, landuse=education and education=school for tagging a school with an area in iD. --E de Wit (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. A good idea in principle, as it would also solve the old problem "add address data on the amenity=school area or on the school building". However, my fear is that this proposal will lead to cutting out education grounds from residential areas via multipolygons because both tags are landuse, which are in principle not allowed to overlap. -- Eiskalt-glasklar (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Eiskalt-glasklar: I wouldn't worry too much about that. Already, amenity=school (or one of the the others) implies its land-use, just like many other amenities and leisure objects. This just makes it explicit, just like landuse=religious. You are right that multi-polygons are unwieldy with large landuse=* areas, but in practice mappers will either just put this one on top of a larger land-use, or split it up further like this. If you have multiple schools that share a single grounds, than changes are you are already on the edge of a landuse=residential anyway. --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This will solve a tagging problem that exists (and I am facing right now). I am not sure if I am simplifying this a lot, but from what I understood it is simple like that: if there is a parcel with a single school, tag it like the previous practice (amenity=school in the area). Only when there is two or more educational features in a single parcel, use landuse=education for that area and add the educational features as nodes. To me, it can't be simpler like that. -- Matheusgomesms (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Tokada (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Hernan (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mweper (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Colgza (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Guillemmal (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. We definitely need this. It also helps to map the so-called "educational poles" in Argentina. --AgusQui (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --CarlosBrys (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. schools and other stuff like kindergarden is within residential area! landuse=residential + amenity=school is the right way. --Kenji (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kenji: Did you read the proposal? That doesn't solve the problem of more than one school sharing the same grounds and the resulting tagging for the renderer. --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
multiple amenity=school, problem solved. schools that are administrative separated have distinct boundaries where each headmaster makes the rules. there is no shared ground, respectively that is all landuse=residential. and it should definitely not have a own landuse tag, compare leisure=sports_centre --Kenji (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Educational amenities with shared grounds exists though. Plenty even. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --O0ps! (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gileri (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --LeoAl (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Diegokrein (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Diegokrein: You accidentally forgot to sign your vote. I have added your signature based on this page's edit history. --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Eginhard (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Camello AR (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC) I want to add that here at Argentina, sometimes in a same building are various diferent levels schools (with own name and diferent boards) that operates at same time, or in diferent times (IE at morning is a primary school, afternoon is a secondary -prep or high school-, and evening is a terciary -non university- were teatchers learn). / Quiero agregar que acá en Argentina, algunas veces en un mismo edificio hay varias escuelas de diferentes niveles (con su propio nombre y diferentes equipos directivos), que funcionan al mismo tiempo o en diferentes horarios (por ejemplo, a la mañana es una escuela primaria, a la tarde un secundario -preparatoria- y por la noche un terciario -no universitario- donde se estudian profesorados o magisterios
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --FasterTracker (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Piotr Strębski (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Protoxenus (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This really is land use (as distinct from land cover) and is broad in scope so fits well with existing landuse values such as residential, commercial, retail --MikeCollinson (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Reino Baptista (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. We shouldn't be using amenity=school for a multi-school area, and each school should have exactly one amenity=school object associated with it. This solution seems as good as any. (FWIW, I run a comparison of UK schools in OSM against official data at https://osm.mathmos.net/schools/ . My fudge to deal with this issue was to add school=shared_site to areas tagged with amenity=school but containing multiple schools with their own OSM object. The tool then recognises this and knows to ignore such areas in the comparison, rather than flagging them as an unexpected school. But I think the solution in the proposal is better.) Rjw62 (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gruebel (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --StephaneP (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --akadouri (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Proposal is a bit confusing but once you understand it is clear that this change will solve the problem of two schools on one property.--BubbaJuice (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. First off, I think that landuse=education is a good idea as an unambiguous tag to indicate the grounds of an educational facility. I also agree that we should strive for one amenity=* tag per educational facility. However, I have the following concerns which could easily be addressed with an updated proposal:
    • In the case of a single educational facility, it should be recommended that mappers always tag the grounds with landuse=education, rather than rely on an implicit meaning of amenity=school,university,college. This creates a clear separation between land use and amenity, and allows data consumers to (eventually) rely on one tag for educational landuse and a totally separate tag for each institution -- simpler for both mappers and data consumers.
    • In the case of multiple schools on one grounds, the proposal should recommend simply adding landuse=education to these areas and only removing the redundant amenity=school tagging once widespread render support has been achieved. This will ensure that these features remain rendered on maps until renderers can catch up. Edit: I see that this is suggested in the "transition strategy" section. I would make this an actual recommendation, but the bigger issue is the first point I raised.)
--ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@ZeLonewolf: I agree with you in terms of consistency when tagging single schools on one ground. But I also understand that some people may disagree with you. Either way, those people who think like you may oppose this proposal, and those who disagree may oppose an updated proposal. Worst case, the use of landuse=education for multiple schools on one ground will not be approved just because there is disagreement on how to tag single school on a single ground. This may happen even if most people see a need for landuse=education in general.
So I think we should focus on the main issue of this proposal, which is multiple schools on one ground. The treatment of single schools may (later) be decided in a separate proposal. --Bstein (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Rabeyroux (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I'm in favor of this general idea but I'm voting no because I think this proposal is not clear enough. I think the recommendation should be that the areas for all schools, colleges, universities, etc be mapped as landuse=education, not just when there are multiple on one grounds. It should also be made clearer that dual tagging will be required until rendering support catches up. -- Ezekielf (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ezekielf: A lot of amenity=* and leisure=* have implied land-uses (and this is fine). Making them all explicit would mean a lot of redundant tagging and a major change way beyond the scope of this proposal because that would affect a lot more tags than just the educational amenities. Making the educational amenities an exception in this regard isn't helpful either. I don't think existing school grounds with multiple schools in it now tagged as empty amenity=school entities will be retagged as landuse=education en masse until rendering support is there in Carto, but ultimately local mappers will have to make that call. Are you worried that school grounds will become temporarily invisible in Carto-based renderings? --JeroenHoek (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Consider landuse=commercial with shops inside it, similar situation and use. Warin61 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kjon (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The proposal is a good initiative and very promising, but I would rather see it as a standard tag in every case than as an optional, additional tag. Maintaining consistency in the data is important. I second ZeLonewolf's comment on this topic. --501ghost (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. ----Janolezab (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I agree with ZeLonewolf and 501ghost in principle, but would rather go for the bird in the hand now. --Alfons234 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --OSMRogerWilco (talk) 18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.I believe that the benefits outweigh the downsides, especially in the long run. --Crodthauser (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Territory can be defined through multipolygon - one geometry, two POI --FreeExec (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@FreeExec: I think you may be confusing the problem of one school on more than one location with the problem this proposal solves; namely, one school grounds/campus/area with more than one educational amenity on it. --JeroenHoek (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Mostly a wonderful proposal, but I agree with the changes ZeLonewolf's requesting. --GoodClover (a.k.a. Olive, GodClovere, ) (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I agree with the many who have said that, in the case that landuse=education is adopted, it should be recommended to use landuse=education for campuses with any number of schools, including one. --Aweech (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.Per ZeLoneWolf --Lectrician1 (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This is a challenging domain in which to propose a new, orthogonal tagging scheme. The current school-within-school technique is entrenched, if counterintuitive. However, I think this proposal as written has the potential to eventually solve a concrete issue – the two orthogonal meanings of amenity=school – without immediate disruption, as long as the nuances in the "Tagging" and "Transition strategy" sections are well understood and we leave open the possibility of future refinements. On the talk page, I weighed in on some common themes from the comments above: see "Don't limit included amenities to nodes" and "Transition strategy". (Meanwhile, I just mapped several schools as site relations with a many-to-many relationship to indoor=rooms scattered about multiple buildings on a big park / outdoor community center campus that was historically a single dedicated schoolground. It just goes to show that for every rational, coherent tagging scheme, there will always be pathological edge cases.)  – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)