|
Hi. Some retirement villages are quite extensive. Like this one here -> website. Is the practice to group these under one social facility with a short desciption at the actual location (like the examples above) or tag each location as an amenity-> like here (a dedicated facility for clergy) ---but falling within the boundary of the main social_facility? The former (first) seems more appropriate than the latter (last). Making sure and need confirmation please. |
|
Interesting question. I don't know if there is a consensus approach. I'd be tempted to classify these retirement villages as a type of residential area and map individual facilities within the area as Thank you @SK53. What you say makes sense. I'll leave this open ---perhaps another user has another suggestion--- until its off the front page and accept.
(12 Jun '22, 09:27)
arkriger
Here's an example of an Almshouse: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/361888397 A retirement village, no other tagging: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103169722 An apartment block with restricted covenants for seniors: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38773627 (where my late aunt lived).
(12 Jun '22, 19:33)
SK53 ♦
I understand ---these are seperate entities (social_facility=*) ---but it seems like 'data-on-data' now.
(07 Jul '22, 08:09)
arkriger
1
I'd not worry too much about data-on-data. Distinct schools within another school are not uncommon & the same is true of hospitals (e.g., separate womens', childrens' or eye hospital within a major hospital).
(07 Jul '22, 16:56)
SK53 ♦
|
