Talk:Key:social facility

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

social_facility:for queries

  • General: It'd be nice if the core values which are nouns were either all plural or all singular. I prefer plural.
  • "diseased": teetering on the edge of undue political correctness, but this seems a little pejorative. But what else really works? "[The] sick"? "Ailing"?
  • "senior": a little-used term in the UK. The English page could do with a few synonyms here.
  • "drug_addicted": "drug_addicts" seems better. "[The] drug-addicted" sounds clumsy to my ears.
  • "under_privileged": the underscore seems redundant. "Underprivileged" is far more common here, and it's recognised by my spellchecker too...

--achadwick 11:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

They're all singular, aren't they? I don't mind if these values are plural or singular. More opinions? Changed under_privileged to underprivileged. Kerosin 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't like "diseased" because it sounds just like "deceased". I don't have any better suggestions though. It's tough to come up with terms that wouldn't be offensive to someone. -- T99 09:00, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Perhaps a mealy-mouthed phrase like "physical_health"? It sits neatly with "mental_health", and perhaps in common parlance better covers the broad range of what consititutes disease. Although both "physical_health" and "mental_health" do not fit with the rest, as adjectives that can describe groups of people. --Craigloftus 13:54, 18 October 2011 (BST)
As an alternative, break it down. "diseased" is very broad. It can include injuries, disabilities (which have their own value), inherited conditions, structural 'variations' as well as infections. Has there been a search for an existing taxonomy that can be reused or repurposed? --Craigloftus 13:54, 18 October 2011 (BST)
  • How about "family" for services that for example cover "relationship breakdown"? (e.g., Oxfordshire Family Mediation). I see this as social_facility=outreach; social_facility:for=family --Craigloftus 13:54, 18 October 2011 (BST)

Section "Different types of social facilities"

Classification seems good to me. Each type of facility should probably get a Wikipedia link to help clarify what's being described. Common synonyms such as "soup kitchen" for the the food_bank value should be provided. Workshops: not just for disabled people: workshops for rehabilitating offenders are quite common too. --achadwick 12:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about adding pages for all 9 social_facility values with a more detailed description and some examples. Maybe that would be better rather than linking many wikipedia-articles that may differ to our intended tags. I'm quite not sure about "workshops for rehabilitating offenders". That's something completely different to my concept of social_facility=workshop, but it might fit to that category. Just add it with a appropriate description! Kerosin 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Update: Added Wikipedia-Links to most of the tags and added offenders to workshops! Kerosin 08:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Adding some discussion that took place about the shop=charity topic:

User Hurricane Coast proposed:

On the whole, I am a big contributor to charities with my time or money. As the holidays approach, it always seems to be close to heart to contribute to those less fortunate. I have proposed a Project of the Week to be about Charity, whether it’s shops, donation centers, food banks or soup kitchens. Perhaps you have more ideas! I would like some help in creating the best practices in tagging for these locations around the world.
We have of course shop=charity. How about amenity= food bank (though I’m not sure this translates to around the world, it’s common in the US)
amenity= homeless shelter or even shop= donation center name= goodwill

Laurence Penney:

I tagged some shop=charity over the last couple of months, but did so reluctantly. I think I might go back and use shop=second_hand. We could use something like business=charity or business_model=charity or charity=* to declare that it is non-commercial. (345) (403)
I've also tagged several charity bookshops as shop=books. For these it seemed even more important to model the type of thing you can buy, rather than the business model - but that may be because I buy lots of second hand books and only a few second hand clothes.

What do you think of avoiding shop=charity?

In the discussion during the social facility proposal, we thought about shops:

but left it that shop=charity was more appropriate. However, we do have social_facility=food_bank which is a step towards a charity-oriented shop, one that specifically gives away food.

Thinking about it from an end-user perspective, I could see 2 types of people with respect to charitable merchandise:

1. Those that are looking for a place to donate goods, whether they are food, clothing, household items, book, even a car
2. Those that are looking for a place to buy second-hand/cheap goods from a store that has social welfare as a higher priority than profits

In either case, the shop key handles the description of the actual merchandise (shop=clothes, shop=books, etc). I think a new type of social facility would help describe the business model as Laurence mentioned:


So for both types of users, they would add the social_facility=shop tag to their search. We may want to have an explicit "donation={yes,no}" tag, I'm not sure if that is necessary. Sean Horgan 21:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC):


"retarted" could be added to the list of social_facility:for=* values (disabled is too vague for this kind of facility). I'm not a native English speaker so I'm not sure if that word has no humiliating implications, if that's the case something like mentally_disabled should considered instead. --AMDmi3 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unambiguously derogatory these days; please don't use the term "retarded". The Wikipedia page for the conditions covered states that intellectual disability is becoming a suitable replacement in the US and Australia. Saying "[people with an] intellectual disability" seems uncontroversial to me as a British English speaker, but I don't think we should use forms like "[the] intellectually_disabled" or "[the] mentally_disabled", expecially not after "for..." construction. Phrasing it like that lumps people together too much, which is dehumanizing. Better suggestions welcome (please!); it isn't my place to suggest anything. --achadwick (talk) (Nihil de nobis, sine nobis) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

In Britain, "learning disabilities" is the preferred term (for a wide range of disabilities). As for the question of talking about "the learning disabled", the preferred term is "people with learning disabilities", which does not lend itself to concise tagging. On the other hand, "people with disabilities" is generally preferred for physical disabilities, too, as it avoids defining people by their disability. --Davespod (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

method of composition for social_facility:for values

There need to be a documented method to compose several social_facility:for values.

  1. OR logic, for example, a facility for both child and juvenile, may be expressed with commonly used semicolon:
  2. AND logic, for example, a facility for mentally disabled orphans (real-life example (Russian): http://кдди.рф/)

--AMDmi3 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A good point, which makes it clear that rewriting the social_facility:for=* mess is probably necessary for purely formal reasons. Quick answer that'll allow you to get some mapping done: the semicolon value separator is sometimes used for this in OSM, but the general advice is to avoid this system wherever possible because it requires specific support in software.
Completely in the abstract, thinking about improving this tag/namespace using Key:fuel as an example, would something like
social_facility:assists:<group> = { yes | no | <type-of-assistance> }
be a good replacement for social_facility:for=*? It might just be expressive enough.
BTW, in the expression above, the best guideline for the <group> keywords is that it should be the term generally used by the group for themselves. Perhaps it could be extended to be <group-or-condition> as well, but thorough care will be needed to get the terminology right and avoid mindbendingly bad keywords emerging (such as the existing "diseased" — just. what.)
--achadwick (talk) (unclean! unclean!) 19:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Rework social_facility:for into social_facility:assists:*

Building on what was mentioned in the above section, some reworking should be done for this type of field. The precedence for this type of thing tends to be not to group multiple values into one key/value field (eg: social_facility:for=senior;disabled), because that requires extra logic to parse. Instead, it's better to give them each their own key/value pair (eg: social_facility:assists:seniors=yes)

Some similar tags: Access, Key:payment

Here's my proposal for a better schema:

Tag Values Description
social_facility:assists:seniors yes/no/<type of assistance> Elderly people
social_facility:assists:homeless yes/no/<type of assistance> People without homes
social_facility:assists:victims yes/no/<type of assistance> Victims of abuse or other crimes
social_facility:assists:unemployed yes/no/<type of assistance> People without jobs
social_facility:assists:disabled yes/no/<type of assistance> People with physical disabilities
social_facility:assists:mentally_disabled yes/no/<type of assistance> People with mental disabilities
social_facility:assists:juvenile yes/no/<type of assistance> Children who may have committed crimes
social_facility:assists:orphans yes/no/<type of assistance> Children without parents
social_facility:assists:addicts yes/no/<type of assistance> People with drug addiction problems
social_facility:assists:migrant yes/no/<type of assistance> Immigrants; people who have moved from another country/region
social_facility:assists:underprivileged yes/no/<type of assistance> Poor or disadvantaged people
social_facility:assists:children yes/no/<type of assistance> Young people; not to be confused with orphans (see above)

Notes: I think it sounds better to use the plural form of each. I also think we should cut down on redundancies where possible, which is why I removes abused (falls under victims), and diseased (falls under disabled or mentally_disabled). I think a distinction should be kept between disabled and mentally_disabled, because there's a big difference between being (eg) a paraplegic and being schizophrenic. I'm assuming they wouldn't be helped at the same facilities.

--Oddityoverseer (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your proposal! I like the idea, but I'm not sure if "assists" really fits for all types of facilities. Would you say "assists" for food_bank, shelter and outreach? I'm not a native speaker so I will leave it here as discussion. In general I like the idea of social_facility:<placeholder>:migrant

Kerosin (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Another way is to simply bring current value into key and use yes/no as value: social_facility:for:children=yes/no/<type of assistance> --BushmanK (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Children's Centre

With my newborn baby I'm discovering there's such a thing as a "children's centre" in the UK e.g. here. In this case it's mainly a nursery school actually (amenity=kindergarten) but has extended "community centre" type functions. Free drop-in sessions for breastfeeding and children's education play times. I added the social_facility:for=child to try to capture that, but maybe there's something better. I guess the terminology "children's centre" is arguably a bit of a vague newfangled government initiative thing, and what really matters is the range of services on offer there. -- Harry Wood (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend to treat these things separately. Keep amenity=kindergarten on the polygon, as this is the main function. Create a node within the building, describing the community services. Decide if it is open to a general audiences of parents for amenity=community_centre + community_centre:for=parent; or addresses an audience with specific needs, getting professional help from social workers, nurses, for amenity=social_facility + social_facility=outreach + social_facility:for=parent. Choose *:for=parent or =child depending who is the addressee of the specific service (e.g. how to breastfeed addresses parent, while toddler music addresses child, or maybe family). In the specific case, reading the timetable, it seems the general-family sessions prevail, I'd go for amenity=community_centre + community_centre:for=family.


I am currently updating a social facility node, and I noticed that the organization that runs the facility describes its work as transitional housing. What would be the best way to categorize transitional_housing? I do not believe "shelter" fits.

  • What is the difference between "transitional housing" and "shelter"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I observe that politics often uses euphemisms for particular social facilities to make them appear in a different light; such as 'care home' for 'nursing home' or 'transit centre' for 'refugee camp'. This might be a similar case here. I propose, to avoid tag fragmentation, to stick with the common, traditional names. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
In my mind, the big difference between a shelter and transitional housing is that a shelter meets an acute need, and transitional housing meets the need of an existing process. For example, this report seems to indicate that transitional housing was originally for people who were in one form of housing (like a mental hospital or prison) and now need help/supervision on their way back into regular housing. Shelters, on the other hand, often let people in 'off the street' in the case of homelessness or refugee/disaster situations. The impact for homeless map users is that they don't want to waste their time going to transitional housing buildings. They want a shelter. This difference would also impact how useful our maps will be for developers and analysts who need to understand what kinds of services are actually available in a certain area. Smpls (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
"The impact for homeless map users is that they don't want to waste their time going to transitional housing buildings" social_facility:for=homeless should be sufficient for that. "difference between a shelter and transitional housing is that a shelter meets an acute need, and transitional housing meets the need of an existing process" I would prefer a new tag for that. So amenity=social_facility, social_facility=shelter + (for example) transitional_housing=yes. I think that redefining social_facility=shelter is not a good idea. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with adding a new social facility type for transitional housing, as a clear distinction between this and shelter was provided. Different terms have different connotations, but also often implications, and if things are different we should use different tags. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with a new tag for that, I am against redefining currently used social_facility=shelter (it explicitly includes transitional shelter what seems to be a different name for transitional housing) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Mateusz, thank you for your help. I implemented your recommendation in this commit. Smpls (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

gender specific social facility?

So how to exactly tag gender specific counselling facility? In my eyes it should be social_facility:for=women, but there is officially no such option. Same of course for men's counselling. PS: same goes for type ... there is seemingly no option for a place that mainly provides counselling. OSM itself suggests "advice" but that sounds rather weird, honestly.

Note Any tags you like, you can just start using tag that you need Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The tricky part here - is it for all woman? Or is it combination of say "social_facility:for=children" with male/female restriction? Note male=* and female=* that are sometimes used for such restrictions Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In this specific case I'm looking at a place where women can get counselling and help in all kinds of situations (Frauenberatungsstelle). Also "do whatever" is not really good advice if the question is if there is a de facto standard for places like this. --Exil-Wiener (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
BTW, if you want more answers then tagging mailing list is a good place to get plenty of answers. I am not aware of any standard, but I never tagged such locations. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll usually tag them as social_facility=outreach + social_facility:for=women. There's currently about 200 uses tagged that way. The male/female tags are also an option. Although, if the facility specifically deals with women's issues then social_facility:for=women seems more appropriate. Since it's not something like a traditional gender based access restriction per say. On the "type" thing, I agree "advice" sounds weird. "counselling" is a specific thing though. that mostly applies to psychotherapists. Whereas, social facilities mostly do social work advising. Like providing referrals to other services, help finding housing or employment, etc etc. In that way they could be considered advice givers. Although counseling is a part of that sometimes, but if it's purely counseling a more appropriate tag IMO is healthcare=psychotherapist. Which I'll admit applies more to private practices then "facilities", but is still appropriate depending. The more important thing is if the place does mostly social work with some counseling or mainly counseling with occasional social work. Hopefully that's helpful. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing social_facility:for

From the recent discussion about tagging HIV testing and treatment places on the wiki Mikko Tamura wrote: "We actually used some of the tagging schemes found on the social facility tag but I do not agree with the social_facility:for=diseased + disease:hiv=yes Actually it is from this tag where we though of using the initial "disease tag" and I agree that it does not give justice about HIV. I liked the social_facility:for=plhiv because it gives focus to the individual or community."

Several of the values like "social_facility:for=diseased", "social_facility:for=abused" and "social_facility:for=drug_addicted" which sound incorrect and do not match the terminology used in healthcare. 

Taginfo shows that only a few values are actually common:

  • social_facility:for=senior - used 38 000 times, by far the most common (mainly for nursing homes / assisted living)
  • disabled - used 2700 times
  • child
  • mental_health
  • homeless - used 1400 times

The tags like "diseased", "abused" and "drug_addicted" are much rarer. 

The comment above suggested using a specific term for people living with hiv ("PLHIV") rather than "diseased."  Would it make sense to use the specific name of the illness here? --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • If social facility is solely for people infected with HIV then it makes sense. On the other hand having separate social_facility:for tags for leprosy and every other illnesses seems unfortunate. Maybe use general value + subtag specifying disease? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
IMO places that do HIV "testing and treatment" aren't really social facilities. More like mixed use healthcare facilities, that probably have social services as part of what they do but aren't confined to or mainly do them. But like isn't testing for HIV done by a phlebotomist? And I don't think people who provides meds for AIDS treatment are psychiatrists. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
There are some homeless shelters and refugee housing facilities which offer HIV testing (usually not treatment). An HIV rapid test only requires a drop of blood, so it can be administered anywhere. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware, but in the case of a homeless shelter I would assume social_facility:for=homeless would take precedent over them being HIV patents. Which is where healthcare tagging tp supplement it could potentially come in. Otherwise, you'd have something like social_facility:for=homeless;diseased + disease:hiv=yes. Which just clunky and doesn't really convey that they do HIV testing and treatment anyway. I'm sure not every single HIV shelter in the world also tests and treats HIV. So, it shouldn't be assumed by tagging that it's a social facility for HIV patents that they do. I know there are food pantries exclusively for HIV positive people that don't do either. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)