Tag:type=health
 type = health
|
| Description |
|---|
A medical person, facility, service or amenity. 
|
| Group: health |
| Used on these elements |
    |
| Requires |
| Useful combination |
|
| Status: proposed |
| Tools for this tag |
|
This tag is a relation type and so only valid within relations.
This relation type can be used represent complex medical object relationships or objects which have no fixed location, such as the staff of health facilities (e.g. offices) or where the exact location is not known until now, as for the individual offices at the inside of a health centre building. As the provided services of a health facility and its service level is largely dependent on the training of the employees, this is a good reason for adding the staff to the health facilities.
This is also useful to represent e.g. complex hospitals such as the university hospital "Charité" in Berlin/Germany, which consists several, former independent, hospitals spread over whole Berlin. An other example is e.g the university hospital in Greifswald/Germany, where the hospital buildings also spread over the whole city and are not in an single area.
There is no change of the tag meaning if they are used inside a type=health-relation. Health relations should only be used if they are needed, if possible, the node/area should be tagged.
You can use any valid subset of tags from Healthcare 2.0 in a health-relation (besides useful common tags), but it should always be non-ambiguous clear, to which type of health object the tags in the relation apply and in what medical system the object is located.
Tags in sub relations always apply to their parent object, also for health_person:type=*, so that you can get relation chains which are hard to handle. For example of physicians which are also therapists and maybe something other, but I don't want rely on things as a they have e.g the same name.