From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There is Key:isced:level for the property you want to express, which is an international standard.

Not exactly. The key isced:level and the key grades are different; grades=* is used for which grades are provided; and isced:level=* is used for ISCED levels; which group multiple grades together.

You should discuss your proposals with the community first. --Polarbear w (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Added: Thanks :)!

EzekielT (talk), 19:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

You removed the warning label from the Ambox. However, can you provide any evidence that even in Canada the grades below zero and above 13 are in use in real life? Otherwise we might move your whole page to your user space for further development. Please note that the proposal you refer to is only a draft that you created yourself simultaneously, and nobody has agreed with that. As said in other context, you cannot retro-define a different value system just by writing a wiki page.--Polarbear w (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be useful for all schools on OSM, including kindergartens, whether toddler education, infant education, etc., is provided, and in universities, for determining whether undergraduate or postgraduate (or both) education is provided. I made it so that it covers all types of education. In Canada, usually schools offer toddler education to Grade 5 or even to Grade 12, so it's very useful to have one encompassing system of tagging. Also, in Sweden, Grades 14 (ages 19-20), and 15 (ages 20-21), called "Fourth Level" and "Fifth Level", are featured in gymasiet (ongoing school). I've also edited the ambox again so that the tagging system is not redefined, just added to :). Thanks :), EzekielT (talk), 09:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC).

Thus I conclude that even in Canada, numbers below zero or above 13 are not in official use. They are just applied by yourself. Do not expect everybody to follow your undiscussed idea. As you just discovered in your Sweden example, different terminology is used in different countries. That's why the ISCED levels are useful, as they are already normalized internationally. Which grade are you in?--Polarbear w (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Special education

Currently, 93 schools are tagged with grades=SP, most of them imported from MassGIS. This value means the school offers special education services. But special education normally isn't a grade; it's a parallel educational service or curriculum that can span multiple grade levels. Sorting it to the end of the grade list also makes little sense, since a student doesn't need to complete 12th grade to advance to it. Unfortunately, ISCED doesn't define a level for special education, so isced:level=* is no help. [1] school=special_education_needs is used 74 times, but in many cases, it needs to be combined with other school types. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

education:program_special_needs=* has been used 599 times in Kenya. I think a dedicated key like this would avoid the conflict with school classification that affects school=special_education_needs, but there's literally no documentation about this tagging scheme. Proposed features/Education 2.0 proposed education_profile:special=*, which has hardly ever been used. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 05:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Of the schools imported from MassGIS back in 2008, SP only ever appeared by itself in grades=*, except for two schools that combined it with numeric grades. In fact, their type=* tags indicate that they're dedicated day centers. grades=* is inappropriate for these schools just as it would be on a vocational school. The two schools that are tagged with both numeric grades and SP no longer appear in the MassGIS dataset, so I assume they've closed.

This still leaves the question of how to tag the presence of special-needs programs for "mainstreaming" at ordinary grade schools, but perhaps that's better discussed elsewhere.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking inspiration from social_facility:for=*, there is 1 school:for=blind way 548913103 (not that 27 social_facility:for=blind is significant) , and school:for=special_need way 113212938 instance.
--- Kovposch (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kovposch: school:for=* implies that the school is dedicated to a particular population. Such schools are commonly tagged school=special_education_needs or as amenity=school social_facility:for=* because they're social facilities serving as a school for a certain population.

But I was instead asking about "mainstreaming" programs, in which special-needs students are integrated into the same classroom as the general population while also having access to a special-needs resource room on site. The tagging scheme you're thinking of would require something like school:for=general_population;special_needs, but I think a dedicated key or subkey indicating the presence of special needs education would be more straightforward and reminiscent of language=*.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 10:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You could still do school:for:*=yes. This allows school:for:*=partial and school:for:*=full for different inclusions, in addition to school:for:*=main and perhaps school:for:*=segregated (does this exist together?) Furthermore, there are different levels of impairment. An average school doesn't usually the resource to support all.
Apparently Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0#Rehabilitation_facility.2C_providing_also_a_support_group suggested a disease:autism=*, without any list of disease:*=* for guidance. To be intercompatible, there needs to be a more depathologized/destigmatized term for disorders in both.
language:*=* has another issue of not differentiating taught language vs teaching language on amenity=school, cf Talk:Key:language#Language:<purpose>:<iso>.
Ps: Looks like "special" shouldn't be used if we want inclusive terminology. --- Kovposch (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kovposch: I'm very open to using different terminology. "Special education" or "special-needs education" is the predominant term in U.S. education settings for the whole spectrum of educational programs, used even by advocates for these students. However, I understand that it can carry negative connotations depending on the audience. "Disease" would be a step backwards in my opinion, but there does need to be a general term, because programs in many public schools don't specialize in one condition or another; they're required to serve any needs that arise. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)