Proposal talk:Multiple schools on one ground

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Transition strategy

This proposal lacks a transition strategy. Currently amenity=school is a tag which is in wide use and renders a certain way. Switching this tag to landuse=education would cause areas that currently do render to not render. A transition strategy must be described that will preserve rendering support for current taggings (at least 500K on amenity=school alone), until such time that a replacement tagging scheme might become popular enough to be adopted by renderers. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody here "switching" some tagging. We find a new tagging for a problem, what nowhere is documented. And we don't need a transition strategy for any renderer either. As you see in the tagging-section - it stands in the Rationale with other word too:
"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)"
So there are no changes for the renderers as show the "new" landuse=education tag. On Git-issues this was everytime rejectet with "not documented in wiki" [1] [2]
We also can create a maproulette-challenge to change the tagging of unnamed amenity=school areas, when you like.... --SafetyIng (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The (now documented) migration process for this tag seems unconcerning to me. It's true that, for some time, amenity=school landuse=education could refer to either a dedicated schoolgrounds (optionally) or a shared schoolground, but that ambiguity already exists today. The proposal simply defers some manual mapping that requires context: it allows landuse=education to be introduced as a dual tag rather mindlessly on every existing amenity=school area that surrounds a building, but removing amenity=school would require more care to distinguish dedicated and shared schoolgrounds. Perhaps other voters would rather front-load the second task, but I don't see the difference as being fatal to the proposal. It doesn't require dual tagging, but I think that could be a separate followup proposal with the goal of strengthening the migration. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Minh Nguyen: - thanks to your opinion.
First, the full transition strategy is very variable. Personally, I also don't see a big problem in "wildly" distributing the tag landuse=education. I would have been more determined in deleting amenity=school:
  • Ways without name tag, without building tag, etc -> no problem -> automated edit possible
  • Ways with deviations davin -> problem -> maproulette
I would also have proceeded separately with the maproulette challenges.
  • landuse=education without amenity=* (on the Way or containing)
  • other amenity=check school
In all these steps, I would of course consult with Talk-ML & Forum. They also depend on how the integration of the functions into the renderers; here primarily Carto; proceeds.
--SafetyIng (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think not

Resolved

OSM already has a tag for a school-ground: amenity=school. Yes, this should be used on both nodes and closed ways (polygons and multipolygons). In fact, it is and virtually always has been. The assertion that this is "fake" or "double-tagging" is specious (superficially plausible, but actually wrong): there are quite many school-grounds that have this tag, there are or can be one or more nodes that identify a school (the "office" or "administration" of the school), one node per school sharing the location (inside the polygon so similarly tagged). That's not "fake" or "double-tagging" it is simply a long-standing convention in OSM. These data work (just fine) similarly for amenity=university being possibly paired with amenity=college, which it often is. OSM should not further overload the already stressed landuse=* tag. Here we have the potential of further overloading of landuse=* happening again. I wish to nip this in the bud and urge "just say no." The way we tag schools is fine. Perhaps the author might consider how s/he selects data and conforms it to the convention(s) that already exist. The proposal is essentially superfluous and would add confusion to an already semantically heavily-loaded tag landuse=*. I think not. Stevea (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


I disagree on that. The tag amenity = school is for a school - i.e. purely the school - not a school ground. When you have a school with only used school ground - than you can map the ground fully as "amenty=school" - because there is only one school.
When you have multiple schools on one ground - that dont work to determine the ground as school too. And it is no convention - it is not documentet. It is practiced because there is no better alternative up to now. And that's what the proposal is supposed to do away with.
amenity=university and amenity=college don't work together. According to the OSM definition, a college is precisely not a university institution. (You mean colleges as sub units of an university - but that are no amenity=college)
And would the way we tag schools beeing fine - why there are often problems with schoolground with multiple schools....?
--SafetyIng (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Without wishing to sound harsh, you are mistaken; this is false. Look at our wiki for amenity=school and see that along the right side where it says "Used on these elements" the "area" icon is clearly allowed.
It is a documented convention; see above.
My University of California campus (UC Santa Cruz) has amenity=university tagged on the polygon which defines the edge of the campus AND has ten nodes which are (properly!) tagged amenity=college, because that is correct! There are ten residential colleges on this university campus. This is fully allowed by our wiki's documented usages for both tags, and in this case, because they are, and it is absolutely clear to tens of thousands of people who attend and interact with this campus over the decade-plus it has been tagged like this as correct, so it hasn't been changed. Are you proposing that this is wrongly tagged? No, I think not.
What problems? Please be specific in saying what is wrong (if anything, I see nothing wrong), we are unable to read your mind. Thank you. Stevea (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Beg your pardon, I don't think it is (documented) for multiple schools on one campus, not in the amenity=school entry anyway. It does say something in that direction in the "One Feature..." wiki entry, but only with a "may be needed" and not 100% referring to the main problem often encountered --Alfons234 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


First of all: Please hold the structure. This is no Mail you answer. I've corrected it.
And no, it isn't an documented convention. You interpret the possibility to map a school as area (e.g. because there is an single school with an own used ground) false. So the ground with the building is the school. => area. | When you have more than one school on the ground, those belongs to every school on the ground. This case is never documented in the wiki. You are overinterpreting the "area symbol"
The problems already supposed in multiple forums, the tagging-ML. Please feel free to look at Links I've already set, e.g. Tag:landuse=education#Referring_sources; but also I can refer to the german Telegram-channel, where the problem: "How to map school-complex with multiple schools on one ground."
The problem with the university I've answered you on the Mailinglist --SafetyIng (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


Apologies, I am unable to parse this. Stevea (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow, have you read our wiki for amenity=school?! The "Campus details" section clearly shows (with a pretty diagram) the tag of amenity=school applied to the enclosing polygon (area). The "Landuse" section says, and I quote the entirety of it (except a taginfo box): "Tagging an area with amenity=school is the established way to tag the campus. Thus, a landuse=* tag is typically not needed. There are some landuse=school tags in the database, please make sure they also carry the amenity=* tag." That is crystal-clear to me that a "landuse=* tag is...not needed." Please embrace and follow the directions and instructions in our wiki. Withdrawing this proposal seems a prudent step in that direction. Stevea (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't subscribe to Telegram (nor should I have to), although if there is something (even in German, I am OK to use a translator and have certainly done so, for example for German forum posts) that I must read in this context, I'd like to read it in an OSM context. Try this: our wiki for landuse=education says "The more common amenity tags for specific education types...(already) imply landuse=education." What more do you need?! Stevea (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


okay, from the Beginning: Yes - I read it, and understand it already. When you tag the area of one school you map the ground for the school -> Did you see the "name"-Tag on this picture? So it is etablish the campus of one school is tagged as an area. That is something I would touch with this proposal. That I have never said an that don't stand in this proposal. The example on the amenity=school page don't reflect multiple schools on one ground. Same is guided by the entry at the landuse. There the normal case (one school on one ground) is reflectet - multiple schools on one ground is nowhere in the wiki documented.
The landuse=school was proposed/used to replace the amenity=school - because somebody (I really don't know who) was thinking about amenity don't fit to educational institutions. --SafetyIng (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, so let's agree to toss away landuse=school: I am perfectly happy to do so for whatever reasoning we might agree upon. It seems all we need to do is update the diagram and the text of the amenity=school wiki to describe the actual way we've been tagging for 15 years: that inside of a (multi)polygon tagged amenity=school, there are / can be one or more nodes also tagged amenity=school. That's the way we tag, that's what people have understood "works" for 15 years, that's what should be explained in the wiki and likely is the source of your apparent confusion. I strongly assert that further use of landuse=school and / or landuse=education should be highly discouraged (as both confusing and superfluous) after we do this. (We already say so in our wiki, as I've quoted, though relatively mildly: let's be stronger with our language). And with that, we could be done here. Stevea (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
No, sorry - there I - and the other reactions in the german community and the tagging-ML back up my opinion there - see the main problem. We never have a cleared system. And I see that amenity=school should identify the school and not the ground of one ore multiple schools. (But in the regular they are the same, but not everytime). So we need some way of differentiation. And this proposal provides that solution. I have understand that you don't consider and see no problem, when mixing school-grounds and school. But I and others do. And just because something has always been done that way doesn't make it clear. Because it's effectively confusing because it mixes two fundamentally different things together. They can be the same (Equality) but are not the same thing (Identity). --SafetyIng (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
We already HAVE a method of differentiation: on a node this tag means "school office" (or "a school is here") and on a closed way this tag means "school grounds." This proposal muddies the waters of landuse=* in a foolhardy way that our wiki already discourages, saying it is not needed and that the amenity=* tag now properly captures these semantics. You truly have failed to articulate what the problem is, which as I say as simply as the bold text above does, stating "there is no problem here, there are two (slightly different) semantics which share a tag but are sensibly found on two different data structure primitives (node vs. closed way)." THIS ISN'T DIFFICULT! Stevea (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
node vs. closed way is not distinguishing between school and school complex grouping multiple schools. Many shools are validly and correctly tagged as an area. See say this elementary school Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
" Look at our wiki for amenity=school and see that along the right side where it says "Used on these elements" the "area" icon is clearly allowed." - and yes, for area of a single school it is fine. But using it for an area of school complex with multiple actual school inside is something that should be eliminated Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Stevea: Regarding your example of UC Santa Cruz, the residential colleges are subordinate to the university institution, as opposed to coequal, collocated institutions. So I don't think this proposal mandates any change to how that campus is mapped, although it does allow for landuse=education to be added to the campus area alongside amenity=university. landuse=education may not appear to add much value in that particular case, but there would be some practical benefit if we manage to fully migrate shared schoolgrounds (of coequal, collocated institutions) to bare landuse=education, in that mappers wouldn't have to resort to "refinements" like school=shared_site. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes please.

Whilst I am always happy to honour traditions and avoid unnecessary fuss, I find the current state of affairs unsatisfactory. The proposed feature offers a sensible and practical solution for mappers wishing to observe the "One feature, one element" idea while mapping individual schools that share the same ground. Yes, we should not strain landuse, but in this case it is the lesser evil compared to the overlapping amenities workaround that comes with its own inconsistencies. It (the landuse=education tag) will also remain an exception limited to cases of the issues it addresses. --Alfons234 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

What exception? The proposal says nothing about an exception, especially one "limited to cases of the issues it addresses." I'm not sure it DOES "address issues," as I see no issues here, only disagreement with an established tagging convention, or perhaps a mis-reading of the allowance of areas as perfectly acceptable tagging for schools. Stevea (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Exception - The proposal says should only for a very limited number of cases, where there really is a current problem (multiple schools on one campus). So these are the exception.
Issues - Nobody has ever disputed that area is an acceptable tagging for schools, but I am unhappy with the current situation where you pile two, three, four amenity areas on top of each other, as described in the "One feature..." wiki entry. Or amenities within amenities. --Alfons234 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll simplify this as much as I can: amenity=school CAN BE (and so IS) tagged on both nodes (to represent "a school" or "a school's administrative office's location") and areas (to represent "the area the school encloses," often a fence or a boundary/border of the school). EACH of these is a separate semantic defined exactly as above (and by our wiki). When and where they co-exist in the same space (a school's administrative office as a node is certainly sensibly located within the area of a polygon also tagged amenity=school), there will be an area so tagged and at least one (possibly more, if multiple "schools" share infrastructure and/or location, as this does happen) node also so tagged. This is also true of amenity=college tags on nodes found "inside of" the geographic boundary of an enclosing polygon tagged amenity=university. It's not a problem. It's not confusing. There isn't any need for this proposal. Stevea (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)"C
Simplify as much as you want, but what you are writing does not reflect the reality of the amenity=school wiki entry. The Campus details section there is very clear, very intelligible, and very sensible - but impossible to follow when dealing with multiple schools one on campus, and this issue is solved by this proposal, which I therefore welcome. --Alfons234 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It is possible (likely?) that the diagram does not follow wiki process and actually diagram how tagging is actually done in the real world: where an enclosing polygon (tagged amenity=school) which contains "multiple schools" (like a charter school, a "regular elementary" school and a kindergarten, for example) has multiple nodes geographically inside of it, also tagged amenity=school. The relatively simple remedy here is to just update the graphic to reflect the reality of tens of thousands of extant tags exactly as I have just described. Not to propose further use of a tag (landuse=*) which now clearly states "The more common amenity tags for specific education types...(such as school...already) can be said to imply landuse=education." In other words, our wiki already says that this proposal is superfluous! Stevea (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, if there really is a consensus that the diagram in the wiki entry is wrong (and the JOSM validator warnings about amenity in amenity are wrong, too) I would indeed agree there isn't a need for the proposal. But seeing as I know of lots of people voicing discomfort with the situation and (to my knowledge) only one who says that there is no problem, I maintain my support for the proposal until I have been convinced that the consensus described above exists. In this case, there should be a proposal to change both the wiki entry and the JOSM validator policy in this regard. --Alfons234 (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
"Lots of people?" Name them, please, or let them speak for themselves. No sock-puppeting here allowed. Stevea (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
landuse=education makes a lot of sense, and is something I have needed dozens of times in just a single medium sized Dutch city. This tagging lack has been raised several times to my knowledge. (Disclaimer: I am to the best of my knowledge not a sock-puppet.) --JeroenHoek (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
landuse=education does not make sense: our wiki now says that amenity=school (or amenity=college or amenity=university, as appropriate) applied to a polygon already implies this. The "consensus that exists" (that the diagram in the wiki partially omits some of the reality of data in the map) exists in our map's data themselves: out of over half a million polygons in OSM now tagged amenity=school, many thousands of them contain multiple nodes inside of them also tagged amenity=school — although even a single example is truly enough, especially one that is or those that are long-term persistent, resulting in "long-established" consensus. So, as our wiki "reflects and documents the reality of what is in the map," it is correct to update the graphic in the wiki diagram to reflect actual data in the map. This is especially true as the wiki appears to discourage using landuse=education by explicitly stating this semantic is already implied by amenity=school when applied to a polygon. This appears to be a simple oversight on the part of the wiki not quite keeping up with the actual reality of how we tag and is easily remedied by updating the graphic and the text. Not a major problem, but apparently a source of confusion for those who would not otherwise know that this is a long- and well-established mapping practice. Hence, these quite minor wiki updates would clarify that this proposal is not only superfluous, but actually contradicts what our wiki already says (even without the additional graphic or text updates) by needlessly using a (burdened with many values) landuse tag when it is already implied. The additional contention that "this violates what Validator tells me about amenities within amenities" can be explained by the editor making this Validator rule too overzealous with regard to this practice on schools. It is also done elsewhere, for example an amenity=bank often has a number of amenity=atm nodes inside of or attached to its edge. This isn't really a problem: amenities CAN and DO contain other amenities inside of them. Would an amenity=restaurant with a (pay) phone amenity=telephone inside of it be improper to tag the latter on a node inside a polygon tagged the former? Of course not. Similarly for nodes tagged amenity=school inside of a polygon tagged amenity=school: this happens, it has for a long time, we know what this means (though we apparently don't wiki-document it as well as we could — let's fix that) and we say explicitly that polygons tagged amenity=school already imply landuse=education. Stevea (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
People putting separate amenity=school nodes within an amenity=school area to simulate what is proposed here are tagging for the renderer. amenity=school means one school; the fact that it implies its landuse when used on an area does not change that. This proposal offers mappers a neat way to tag school grounds that contain multiple educational facilities without violating both One feature, one OSM element and Tagging for the renderer; I find that laudable.
Also, all your arguments can just as well be levelled against landuse=religious. If that exists successfully (even rendered in Carto) with almost 50,000 uses, so why be so vehement about opposing this one? --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It is not tagging for the renderer: it is saying "a polygon tagged amenity=school describes the school GROUNDS here" (what you want to tag landuse, but that's already implied, and our wiki says so) and "a node or nodes tagged amenity=school describe the specific SCHOOL(S) here." That's not tagging for the renderer, it is rather elegantly (efficient, minimal use of data structures, avoiding tagging complications...) tagging for reality. Adding the specific "extra tagging complication" of landuse=education is NOT minimal, it is NOT elegant, it IS extra complication, especially as our wiki now states that this semantic is ALREADY IMPLIED. Should this proposal become Approved, data users will need to search for two things, rather than one (where the one they only need to search for now INCLUDES the second one as "already implied"). That's got nothing to do with tagging for the renderer, it is simple "semantic inclusion" both existing and being able to be (elegantly) handled by a single search ("look for" school, "get" education). Breaking these apart (needlessly, I still see no good reason to do so, especially as we document it is implied) serves absolutely no purpose. (That I can read, that anybody has articulated very well or even at all, here). Regarding "religious," I'll simply say "don't change the subject" and if you wish to have that discussion elsewhere, we can. Here and now, we're talking about this. And, there already is "one feature, one element" here, it is not violated: as I describe above, node(s) for "school(s"), polygon for "school grounds." Not a single one of the examples in the "Bad situations" section (of One feature, one OSM element) is true in this case, and in fact the first example in its above section (GOOD situations) explicitly describes how we now tag schools (withOUT this proposal). I feel like I'm done here (at least making the points of my argument, eleven levels deep). Stevea (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and input. I think the way the proposal author, other supporters, and I interpret the documentation differs from how you do on several critical points — this can happen sometimes. Don't forget to vote when the proposal moves to voting. --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


Wow, this doesn't seem like, it actually IS: "we'll ignore cogent, patient, even helpful dialog which points out how a proposal directly contradicts existing documentation," a demonstration case of astro-turf / sock-puppet behavior ("Lots of people..." and "I have needed dozens of times...") without offering who these people are or a defense of where or how needed, a complete ignoring of the repeated important point that the proposed semantic is already implied by existing tagging syntax, no explicit reason has been given for WHY this tagging is needed beyond existing tagging syntax, like use cases, examples or locations where a rationale can be seen or tested, and stating (rather directly insulting to me) "only one who says there is no problem" (while offering NO identification of who these "lots of people voicing discomfort" are), ALL of which point out the HIGHLY disingenuous nature of this proposal. What you have done: attempted to shut down discussion without addressing numerous cogent, valid points of argument, attempted to manufacture more support than you actually have, failed to provide a valid rationale for what is effectively redundant and therefore unneeded tagging, failed to provide examples of where — if anything is wrong with existing syntax, the proposal would offer a remedy (except a lot of hand-waving that implies "we simply don't like it" or "our opinion or interpretations differ from yours") and now you are talking about taking this to a vote? What folly! You are barely out of the starting gate! Please don't fool yourselves that you are not pulling the wool over the eyes of all who read this Discussion page of your ill-conceived, poorly-addressing-concerns, so-called Proposal. It is misguided, far too sparse, poorly written, incomplete, wholly unsupported and as of now, a bit of a laughingstock. I do not offer my condolences, as you deserve the disdain of the community such behavior should attract (or abhor, really). Should you wish to see this proposal go further, you have a long, long way to go. I'd offer you my help, but I already have and you apparently don't want it since it differs from what appears to be your attitude of "we're just making this proposal for show, as we've made it clear we are going to tag how we want to, anyway." I have no reluctance to my use of strong language here, you deserve it. Please address my concerns and re-write this as a full, comprehensive proposal so that it may be properly vetted. Ignoring real concerns (as you have) does not count and talking about a vote is ridiculously premature. Stevea (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me first join JeroenHoek's "thank you", Stevea. I was not intending to be dismissive of your willingness to help and your experience. I have read all of your concerns and acknowledged that the landuse tag should not be strained. Also, as I tried to point out, I (and here I am expressly speaking for myself only) am happy to agree that there is no need for this proposal if it is clear consensus that amenity=school within amenity=school is okay. I feel that I have explained why I am not 100% convinced that this is consensus, although I have read and understood your reasons to consider it okay. This was not meant to insult you. Nor was my casual use of the phrase "lots of people" (in fact, I was referring to the same messenger group discussion that the author of this proposal referred to) meant to deceive anyone. On the other hand, I cannot help admitting that I feel your language has been condescending almost to the point of bullying from a very early stage in the discussion. So I offer my apologies if I created wrong impressions by said phrase and I do hope that we can continue in a spirit that all of us well-intentioned volunteers deserve. --Alfons234 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate and consider your apology. I am glad you agree there is no need for this proposal but for the clear consensus that "amenity=school within amenity=school is okay," as it is: it has been longstanding practice in OSM for (as I say), at least ten, possibly 15 years. "Actual use of tags in the map" is de facto community consensus: this tagging has not been challenged. Some (like you and others) appear to be confused by it when you do a query of an area and try to get an accurate count of schools and are befuddled by what is called a "fake" (or extra) school represented by the tag being found on a (multi)polygon surrounding the area. But as this is correctly EITHER "a school" OR "a schoolgrounds" (by widespread, longstanding practice), this makes the query's assumption that "all returns are exactly one school" not quite correct. This isn't the fault of the existing, established tagging practices, it is the fault of a specious assumption underlying the query.
I do not mean to condescend, but when I see the "bullying tactics" I identified, I feel I must call them out. Those are my good intentions, as are bettering a solution to school tagging that can work for the whole world. Necessarily, this must both respect existing tagging practices and follow the decorum of full proposal development. While it does (now) seem that those are getting better here, both of these were either poorly or not done "from a very early stage in the discussion" (here, I did not follow what was said in Slack or in Europe). I thank ZeLonewolf for his efforts to remedy both of those, as well as Minh Nguyen for his recent exposition on the tagging mail-list. Stevea (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional example from the Netherlands

(As mentioned on the Tagging-ML.) There is an ongoing trend in the Netherlands of converting primary schools (i.e., one school on one area in OSM) into 'integral child centres' (Integraal Kindcentrum (IKC)) which contain the primary school as well as child day care facilities working together in one building (or at the very least on the same school grounds).

Here landuse=education makes a lot of sense for the shared grounds, which often has the name of the IKC, with two nodes inside of it for the primary school and child day care facility (which often keep their own name and identity, and are usually run by different organisations). --JeroenHoek (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As our amenity=school wiki says RIGHT NOW, putting that tag on your "shared grounds" already MEANS (semantically, by wide, very long-standing consensus) "school grounds" (shared by many "schools" geographically inside of said polygon) with an implied semantic of landuse=education. So there is no need for the explicit tag of landuse=education on polygons like these: amenity=school already means this. The trend towards IKCs is fine, but as our wiki states what it states, please tag accordingly: amenity=school on the polygon, amenity=school (or amenity=kindergarten, as appropriate) on as many nodes that identify individual "schools" within it as are correctly on that site (within that polygon). This isn't difficult to either understand or do. Stevea (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit suggestion for implied landuse

Under Tagging the proposal now reads:

it can be used, if on a ground is one singe educational amenities. In this case, the entire ground is tagged with the amenity=*.

I would suggest rewording it to something like this:

it may be used, if the bounds of a single educational facility's grounds are tagged with the corresponding amenity=* tag, but this is not strictly necessary because landuse=education is already implied by these educational amenity=* tags.

This may help illustrate that landuse=education is more useful for the exceptions where grounds/a campus are shared, and that single educational facilities already mapped as areas representing their grounds are fine as-is. That will also help in explaining why the number of landuse=education will be low in relation to the number of educational facilities on OSM (because most do not share grounds). --JeroenHoek (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, it may also allay fears that this new tag would mean lots of existing schools that don't share grounds should suddenly be lacking a tag. --JeroenHoek (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
A major problem is that the Rationale in the proposal: "However, amenity = school should only be used for schools and in this case there would be 4 schools according to the database - in reality only 3" is specious (superficially plausible, but actually wrong). It is simply incorrect to say "school should only be used for schools." School should be used to denote (a) school(s) on (a) node(s) and to denote school-ground on the polygon which surrounds either a school or multiple schools on one site. This is what our wiki for amenity=school already says by allowing the tag on both nodes and closed ways. This does NOT mean (as asserted by the Rationale) that there would be (one additional) school according to the database. This is a mistaken conclusion to simply "add all the school tags together." What it is correct to do is to treat all nodes tagged amenity=school as "a school" and all polygons tagged amenity=school as either a school-ground or as a school. That's what we've been doing for at least ten, likely closer to fifteen years. The proposal is superfluous and unneeded. Stevea (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@JeroenHoek: - Thank you, this fits better! I changed the tagging section. --SafetyIng (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This can be accomplished with existing tagging

First off, a few technical points.

  1. The proposal is unclear on exactly what tagging is being proposed, and what tagging is being deprecated. The proposal section needs to be explicit in this regard. See some of my approved proposals for good examples of a clearly-written proposal section.
  2. The proposal does not describe how mappers should re-tag multiple-school complexes that are already tagged using amenity=*. Far more work is needed in the proposal before it can move forward.
  3. The rationale is silent about why the current method of tagging these cases is insufficient. This proposal must describe the current methods, explain why they are insufficient, and then describe how the proposed solution fixes these problems.
  4. The proposal describes rendering, however, this is a tagging proposal. Rendering recommendations need to go on the Carto github tracker. A tagging proposal does not repeat does not change rendering in Carto, and that section should be removed.
  5. The purpose of a proposal is to obtain feedback from the community and assess whether or not a consensus exists on the topic. It seems from the discussions above that you wish to bully users that disagree with you into agreeing with you. I can assure you that this approach towards proposal writing is unlikely to be successful.

As far as the subject of the proposal is concerned, I discussed this proposal with the US mapping community on the OpenStreetMap US Slack. Three other users participated in that discussion (so far, after a half-hour discussion), and the consensus was that the way we tag these today is fine and that additional tagging is not needed. However, feel free to engage in that discussion if you have additional information or ideas to share with that group.

Additionally, it seems that this proposal is motivated by a warning shown in the JOSM validator when an nodeamenity=* is placed within an areaamenity=*. Since this style of tagging is in use and renders appropriately, it would appear that this case is a false positive. As such, I have opened a new ticket on the JOSM bug tracker recommending that this validation warning be suppressed, as there is not a community consensus that such tagging is problematic.

In summary: I could be convinced that there is a need for landuse=education, however, this proposal needs significantly more development, and requires the authors to be open and receptive to the opinions and concerns of the international mapping community, and address those concerns adequately. As such, I am currently a no vote unless the issues I've described can be satisfactorily addressed. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @ZeLonewolf: for your suggestions. I would answer in order:
# Thank you - Would a section with grafics help to understand/be more clear? And (!) here is nothing deprecated. The use of amenity=school for a use without representing a school was never a valid tagging (what is the state if you mark only the ground of a school complex) and isn't documented in the wiki. The use in this case is a missuse - but not intentionally, but because it was so far no useful tagging. With this proposal I am trying to close this gap that amenity = school has "abusively" used up to now
# There is the problem, to determine this "false"-tagging.
# Another thank you. I review this.
# Rendering: The proposal template (Proposal process) includes the "rendering"-section. The ticket at Carto-Git is served after a successfull proposal. (See also "Features/Pages affected"-section). To see, how the introduced tagging would showed on the "main"-map is a part of proposal process. I add this to be here more
# It was never my intention to push anyone into anything. "To bully" is here also too harsh. But if someone just spreads an opinion so hard that - as I feel - is clearly contrary to the representation in the wiki, then I will continue to express that.
" However, feel free to engage in that discussion if you have additional information or ideas to share with that group. " - Sorry, I can not. Unfortunately, this discussion did not take place on an open platform. I would like to exchange ideas - but since I cannot even understand your discussion, it is quite impossible.
You are free, of course, to choose not to engage on those platforms, and I recognize that there are people in the community, including stevea that feel that way for the same reasons. However, as a proposal author, this does mean that you are also choosing to not be aware of the discussions happening in a forum with (at current count) 3,021 members. Therefore, you may find yourself surprised at voting time when people vote on the basis of discussions that they've had in forums that you do not participate in. In summary of those discussions, I will say that they are largely consistent with the points that stevea is expressing --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This proposal is also not motivated by the errorwarning of JOSM - and btw this warning is also correct. Because amenity=school is for one school, not the ground. It can be marked with the school ground of one school - but the school grounds of school complexes were never intended by this.
If it is flagging a current, accepted tagging practice as wrong, then this is not a correct warning -- it's simply one that you happen to agree with. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
About your summary: I am open to opinions and concerns of others, when there are productive and fair - likewise I got from others until your opinion only positive feedback. --SafetyIng (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like you are dismissing opinions and concerns that you disagree with as "unproductive" and "unfair". --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey @ZeLonewolf: - I reviewed the rationale and the tagging section. Is this more clear for you, or do you have another concerns? --SafetyIng (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure where what I'm about to type leaves us, but I do say it in the spirit of explaining perhaps how we might have arrived here. As the "OK to use this tag on a (closed) way" has always been true for amenity=school, it WAS so used, many times. When it was, it seemed clear enough that tagging on a (multi)polygon / closed way was used to mean EITHER "the school" or "a school" (is here, and here are its bounds) or "the schoolground's bounds." But this minor possibility for ambiguity seems it may be the root of what is now contentious. Simultaneously, because the situation DOES exist that "multiple schools" can exist within one schoolground (in several countries), the practice of tagging amenity=school on multiple nodes within a schoolground also emerged. THEN, it was noticed that queries "added an extra" school to the count by including what OSM (properly) denotes as a schoolground as "another school." (This is in fact a specious assumption, which in my opinion, is the crux of the problem, really). There are a number of ways we might solve this, however, whatever result does so must respect existing tagging. I'll leave it at that for now. Stevea (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It is hard to assess the other sections without a clearly stated "proposal" section, as I am still not clear on exactly what is being proposed. I note that the diagrams appear to be well done, so these will be helpful in helping us understand your intent. I would recommend that the proposal section be restated in a form similar to this, which helps to clearly articulate exactly what we are agreeing to or disagreeing with:

Educational landuse is land used for (short description)

Proposed are that:

  • The tag key=value is approved for tagging (type(s) of objects)
  • The tag key=value is deprecated
  • The practice of using (tagging) to tag (situation) [is deprecated/remains the same]
  • (repeat as many bullets as needed to fully describe)

--ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

While I would be also happy with a solution that relies on existing tagging (and I agree that we are not talking about invalid tagging), it still feels more logical to me not to have amenity=school in amenity=school. Therefore, to use your phrasing advice, my understanding is:
  • The tag landuse=education is approved for tagging areas occupied by educational instituations such as kindergartens, schools and universities.
  • The tag amenity=school is deprecated for schoolgrounds that are shared between two or more institutions, with no distinguishable borders between them.
  • The practice of using amenity=school to tag one distinct school including its campus remains the same.

--Alfons234 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@ZeLonewolf: and @Alfons234:; I have rewritten the proposal section - is this more clear to you? I hope we are on the right way and this helps you. --SafetyIng (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a significant improvement over what you had before. What's still missing is:
  • The proposal is silent about whether amenity=school, landuse=education, or both, should be used for tagging school grounds that are used for a single institution.
  • The proposal addresses amenity=school but is silent on amenity=college and amenity=university which have the exact same considerations. Does the proposed tagging scheme extend to those as well, or only to school specifically?
  • The proposal does not address the fact that amenity=school,college,university are currently rendering tags (in Carto, and probably most if not all styles), while landuse=education is not. This proposal needs to tackle this issue head-on (in my opinion) with one of the following options: (1) we accept that this will cause these features to not render for awhile while renderers "catch up" or (2) we recommend dual-tagging for a period of time until renderers catch up, after which the old tagging can be safely removed. That's an important enough issue that it really should be addressed up front, especially if dual-tagging is part of the proposed solution.
--ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@ZeLonewolf: - okay
* No, it conlude it in the Tagging section. Single institution -> you can use landuse=education; but amenity=school as area implies it. But, if you prefer, I'll repeat it a third time on the entire page.
* The problem with college and university is a litte bigger, than this proposal can truely help. E.g. the use of college in subunits of an university (see wikipedia 'Collegiate_university') and other problems (departments and so on, tagged as "university") - this is a so much unapproved area, that with this proposal I can't and I wouldn't touch this. This is really part for another consensus. (That probably could build on landuse=education). Where do you see inconsistencies right here?
* And I would never actual theme the "rendering problem" in case of the good practices. There could be only the option (1). Number (2) would be Tagging for the renderer. Only tag amenity=school furthermore, only to be displayed....? I make a suggestion, how the landuse can be rendered by Carto and open a issue-ticket on Git, if the proposal is approved. --SafetyIng (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Has that settled with my declaration? Or is something still inappropriate, @ZeLonewolf: --SafetyIng (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, a proposal does not change rendering. A tagging vote has no bearing on what Carto does. Typically, Carto adopts renderings when (1) a tag becomes substantially popular in the database and (2) other styles have adopted rendering for the tag. Further, Carto is just one of many map styles. So if part of your solution, for some set of use cases, is "replace amenity=school with landuse=education", then that change does cause a currently rendering feature to no longer render (not just on Carto, but on most if not all other map styles as well). It is fine to propose that, but I would guess that many people will object to this. It seems to me that it would be easier, and more consistent, to approve landuse=education as a tag to describe "land used for the grounds of educational facilities", get that established and widely tagged, seek rendering support, and then after a period of time where it's become established, then you can move to deprecate these duplicate uses of amenity=school with an accepted, already rendering solution. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@ZeLonewolf: You're right, I can't force a renderer with this proposal. But at the same time it is pointless to want to split up this proposal just so that something is tagged for the renderer. That is against the good practice of OSM. --SafetyIng (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I will offer as a general observation from proposal writing, if a proposal has two things, A and B, you will get "no" votes from people that like A and are opposed to B; and vice-versa. Which may cause the proposal to fail, even though individually, there is support for "A" and "B" by themselves. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Pejorative statements about current tagging schemes

I see phrases being used in the proposal and in other discussions such as "valid tagging", "misuse", "false", "fake" to describe the current methods of tagging schools and school grounds. We do not have tagging standards in OSM, with the exception of approved proposals, and even at that, some people even dispute that approved proposals represent a standard or directive. As such, the only thing we can do with the wiki is describe how things are actually tagged in actual usage and which proposals have been approved. If you continue to use such terminology, readers will get the impression that, "SafetyIng is trying to impose their way of tagging this thing on the world by calling my way of tagging 'fake', 'invalid', 'false', etc.". A proposal needs to take a neutral point of view and say, in effect, "this is a current method that this type of feature is being tagged, and instead mappers should tag this other way, and here is a list of reasons why." The proposal must acknowledge this current usage and present alternatives.

Since amenity=school is not an approved tag, there is no such thing as the "correct" way to use it, only opinions about how others should tag it. If a particular tagging scheme is widely used, and the wiki says differently, then the wiki is simply wrong and needs to get updated. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say that it is OK - approving proposal describing specific tagging method as "misuse" indicates that people agree that it should be considered as misuse and eliminated Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


Suggestions to extend the proposal

I support this idea. As Jeroen mentioned, especially in the Netherlands we often face this issue. For clearity reasons, I think ALL school grounds should be tagged with landuse=educational and that amenity=* school|college|university should only be used on nodes within that area of landuse=educational. This will also give clearity for data users. Additionally, you can use the tag educational=* school|college|university to specify the type if possible (optionall). In for example the case of a university with multiple buildings, information like the name, a website etc can be placed on the area. Otherwise the name can be supplied via the nodes with the amenity tags.

For the transition, an idea is to start adding landuse=educational 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=educational remains on the area.

I see landuse as a good tag for this because you describe the landuse, namely for educational purpose. Another option would be something like boundary=educational --Cartographer10 (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cartographer10: - I don't think, that we should discourage amenity=* school|college|university should only used on nodes. Why not mark the full area, when it is used by only one amenity? And what happens to schools with multiple sites? But that is a nother "problem" that I would touch later (mho this should rather be type=site)
But for the "transition-idea" is good. I would add this to the proposal.
How others think about the educational=* idea? --SafetyIng (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@SafetyIng: well, from a consistensy viewpoint, it makes sense to tag all areas with landuse=educational and schools with nodes. educational=* is just to indicate the type of school ground and information in the case of a large campus. For things like elementery school or college, that information on the node is fine to me while the school ground is tagged with landuse=educational --Cartographer10 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I support this proposal

I support this proposal. In France we have a lot of those case of schools gathered together and there is no clean way to tag them. If the area is tagged as amenity=school, it cause several problem :

  • The editor will display warning as there is a school inside a school
  • The Osmose validator will complain that there is a school without ref:UAI (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:ref:UAI)
  • If there is a school complex containing a primary school and high education school and we tag the school complex as amenity=school, There will 3 school in the database but in reality there is only 2.

Here a example of such a group of school. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/137680514#map=18/49.40469/2.83303

Meihou (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Scope of educational facilities?

As the word "education" has a broad meaning, could you elaborate as to which kinds of education facilities (apart from the mentioned kindergarten, school, college, university) qualify for the proposed tag landuse=education? Do you propose that the grounds of a facility shared between e.g. a language-school and a driving-school should also be tagged landuse=education?--Kjon (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a little more complicated. Because why shouldn't a campus of a language school, for example, be labeled? (But I don't even know if it even exists anywhere?)
But e.g. I don't see a driving school directly as an "educational amenity". Could it be better described as "formal educational"? Is there a better wording? --SafetyIng (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
A language school and driving school were just two (maybe bad) examples. I'm trying to find out what you consider an educational amenity? Is it only schools as the title of the proposal suggests? But then you mention to also update tag descriptions for kindergarten, college and university. Which other facilities do you consider "educational"?--Kjon (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
No, I think, that your example is really good. But the meaning of "educational amenities" or "educational institutions" is not deterministic on the whole world. For me, I know a site, wich is shared by a music school and a artschool. I would think about to tag them as landuse=educational. Maybe someone else won't decide that way. Or do you think it should be more clearly defined, @Kjon: --SafetyIng (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
If you propose landuse=education to also encompass less institutionalised forms of education I think it should definitely be mentioned in your proposal. --Kjon (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kjon: And there is also another imprecise term. What should "less institutionalised forms of education" - is the official music school of my hometown less institutionalised? It is very well "institutionalised". I don't see any possibility of formulating something generally valid, local conditions are too different for that. --SafetyIng (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
With institutionalised forms of education I was referring to either amenity=school, amenity=university, amenity=college or amenity=kindergarten. You used the term "formalized education" for this, which I guess has the same meaning. Less instituationalised (or informal) would therefore mean everything else that could somehow be considered educational, like e.g. a driving school, language school or music school. I am trying to find out which kind of educational amenities you want to include in your proposal because you only mention schools. However, if you think that landuse=education should be used for all kinds of (formal and informal) educational amenities, please mention that aspect in your proposal.--Kjon (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I support it (+landuse=kindergarten)

I like this idea, I support it. In Poland we have "zespół szkół" (school complex) which contains two or more schools, landuse=education would be perfect in such cases. And the schools can be added on nodes. Currently such school complex with 2 schools is mapped with 3 amenity=school: one on area and two on nodes.
Also, there are things like "zespół szkolno-przedszkolny" (school and kindergarten complex) which contain primary school + kindergarten. Neither landuse=school nor landuse=kndergarten fits here, so landuse=education would be perfect.

I suggest you also add landuse=kindergarten, landuse=college, landuse=university to the list in the Proposal section and deprecate them too. However, these tags are not used very often. maro21 19:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Maro21: Too bad, that the voting just started, so I don't able to change the proposal. But actually I would say, that because neither landuse=kindergarten (32 uses) nor landuse=college (13 uses) nor landuse=university (66 uses) are realy "in use". Compare here landuse=school with 5 854 uses.... They are also not documented and so with the new tagging education this should also replace them. All in all good idea, but not really necessary (mho). But I hope I held it in my mind, when I rewrite the wikipages ;) --SafetyIng (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought you will announce the date of the voting, so I thought I still had time to write my message ;p. maro21 19:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Also document the reverse

I know a lot of schools and universities spread on two or more campuses. The definition of landuse=education should also include this possibility. An example: A University may have two campuses. Each of them has a name which is referred to in location plans: "Main Campus" and "City Campus". So they would be mapped:

Mapping complex universities as multipolygons is already documented. The only new thing here is that the members are now tagged landuse=education, so they are not named objects without top-level tag anymore. --Bstein (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Bstein: - thank you!
Especially with universities and colleges I wanted to leave it out for now but also see a need. Also, maybe find a new tag for administrative units (departments, institutes, etc.) and so on. By schools or university I would also prefer site-relations instead of multipolygons (single buildings could be also part of a university. They not everytime have the area with "landuse" outside the building.....)
But I wanted to push this back a bit because of the complexity and not to overload the proposal. (E.g., there are some people from America who tag subunits of universities as amenity=college, because they are called college..... ) This must also be taken into account, because worldwide this is used very inconsistently.
But I have it on the screen and would like to tackle it in the future! I would look forward to support in the area also very much. --SafetyIng (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't limit included amenities to nodes

I know some educational complexes where multiple amenities share one yard, but use separate buildings. So it should be encouraged to tag amenity=* as exact as possible: If two schools for example make one campus, but each of those schools uses one building exclusively, the building=school should get the tag amenity=school, rather than adding it as a new node. --Bstein (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, @Bstein:, that I have not really mentioned. I personaly would still prefer the node, because - what is, when one of these schools get another building? Yes really theoretical and Tordanik has commented this on voting: "But that's a comparatively small detail that I predict mappers will be smart enough to ignore.". I recognized it and would pay attention to, if the proposal is aproved and I rewrite the pages. So this could be phrase a little softer. --SafetyIng (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement among this proposal's almost-supporters that the landuse=education are must contain amenity=school features, but that the proposal should not express a preference for nodes over areas. Fortunately, it uses weak enough language ("is mapped", not "must be mapped" or even "should be mapped"), that I suspect we could simply edit Tag:landuse=education after the fact to clarify that the landuse area must contain a amenity=school feature, with nodes appearing in examples and illustrations. Uncontroversial clarifications are always accepted on this wiki after a proposal is approved. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 06:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

landuse=education makes sense, but...

I feel that a landuse tag makes sense. It is not a matter of "node vs area." It is more that, AFAIK, societies set aside land areas for education because they value education and express that prioritization by awarding the use of land to the purpose. In most cases (again AFAIK), land that is set aside for educational purposes is not intended to be taken over by competing industries. I understand that there may be contention over landuse values, but is there another landuse value that would be used on a school, college, or university? I cannot think of one. A landuse value excludes other values and this seems appropriate for landuse=education.

It would also clarify the tagging for the operations yard of a school district. Yes, the land holds trucks, gas pumps, and storage for lawn equipment, but landuse=education makes sense for it. And it would not make sense to see amenity=school on this area.

As far as driving schools and such, they may be businesses offering training as a service, but they are not "schools", except in casual language. They are as much "educational institutions" as political lobbyists are "educators", because they "educate" politicians. Businesses should, IMHO, not have the landuse=education tag.

That being said, there are a _lot_ of uses of amenity=school and the transition plans, hopefully using some automation, need to be fully fleshed out and communicated.

RayKiddy (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hell, why sometimes there are good suggestions so late? :D With the "businesses education" had been a good difference (like the intention of @Kjon: in "Scope of educational facilities?")
To clear - yes driving schools I would not really include in the landuse=education; a music school rather;
Here one must also see that I rather think of larger music schools that belong to the municipal administrations (example would be: https://www.braunschweig.de/staedtische_musikschule/index.php ; https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305953238 ; here, however, amenity=school would also be wrong.....).
In the transition problem, I thought about automation, but the problem is - there are so much several country spezefics.... So I thought about likewise a maproulete-chalenge, so the local users could review by the "new system".... Here I would be interesstet in suggestions (also during the ongoing voting).
--SafetyIng (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
If approved, step one is probably to solicit the views of the Carto maintainers for a rough estimate of the number of uses of landuse=education needed to have it accepted for rendering. After that, usage should increase sharply. Fully retagging existing schools can't really happen before that because you would take away something already rendered from people's maps. The interim solution would probably be to tag empty amenity=school entities (i.e., those used purely for the school grounds and not having any other school-related tags) with an additional landuse=education, but keep the amenity=* tag until rendering is sorted out. --JeroenHoek (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Once again, we see proposal authors (or significant contributors) conflating (confusing, really) the idea of a tag proposal with rendering (especially Carto). Rendering has little if anything to do with a tag proposal; rendering and proposals might only be included together (in a proposal) as "rendering suggestions." Observe the contortions required: "tag empty amenity=school entities...with an additional landuse=education, but keep the amenity=* tag until rendering is sorted out." This seems ridiculous when we already have tagging guidelines well established in our wiki as I have noted here a number of times, AND a proposal author/contributor here is specifically advocating to tag for the renderer (an OSM no-no). Stevea (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds an awful lot like Aniconism (I had to look to wikipedia for the translation :) OSM-Carto is not the least the map for mappers. A means for quality assurance, a quick way to spot errors, missing stuff, superfluous stuff, etc. So rendering is of concern for proposals, when they touch on something, that already gets rendered or something, where rendering is highly wishful for said reasons. Thinking about rendering may also turn up problems that otherwise may have went unnoticed. This not meant to condone mentioned contorsions! --Hungerburg (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_talk:Multiple_schools_on_one_ground&oldid=2668200"