Talk:Tag:amenity=hospice

Is this really healthcare?

I’ve seen that this was recently put in the healthcare group, I am not sure it applies, although I agree it is related and the link in „see also“ is fine. —Dieterdreist (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I changed it and put it into the social facility group. I think it fits better there. Raubraupe 06:00, 25.10.2018 (UTC)

Structured vs duck tagging

Thank you. The ambox that was put seemed too severe, as the suggested alternative tag is still used less, so I added more references to see also, removed the "healthcare" group and clarified the ambox. --Dieterdreist (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think 80 or 150 usages are of the same magnitude, so we should not start fighting which has one item more than the other. Anyway my observation is that the amenity tagging has a few old cases where people wrongly implied from the building name containing (de) Hospiz that there is such facility of palliative care. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that 80 and 150 are similar values, although it is almost double for one of them and I would not completely dismiss it. From my point of view, amenity=social_facility is a failed tag, it has become a useless tag like tourism=information. For anything meaningful you need to look at social_facility=* (or "information" in the other case).
Maybe it would be a compromise to tag amenity=hospice together with social_facility=hospice? --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I respect that is your opinion, but others don't think so. amenity=social_facility is used 70k times, and social_facility=* 58.5k by 9.2k users. By using multiple tags *=hospice you lose the structuring and increase confusion. Seeing amenity=social_facility is very meaningful to me if I want to distinguish it e.g. from office buildings. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I also respect your opinion, but the others that think like this for hospices have mapped one third of the objects in question while the people that think they should use amenity=hospice have mapped two thirds, this is not an opinion. The amenity key is used 13.7 million times and amenity=hospital 145k times. I do not believe it would add confusion if we did not add a redundant tag that says "something social" additionally to "hospice". --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

undiscussed automated edit

I am not sure if I recall this correctly, but was the automatic edit for removing these tags and adding social facility tags, actually discussed and approved? https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/amenity/hospice&***/amenity/hospice&***/social_facility/hospice —Dieterdreist (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the tag has been on an even downward slope since mid 2018. I'm not sure how that would be "an" automated edit. It looks like the normal process of switching over to newer/better tags to me. Otherwise, what automated edit are you talking about? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I think the owness is on you to prove there was a two and a half year continuous automated edit that would warrant the tag not being depreciated. Compared to just normal "re-tagging", that happens all the time when better/more appropriate tags come along. It's not on me to prove or disprove your thesis that there was one, or that it means the tag shouldn't be depreciated because of it. I'm fine with the tag not being depreciated if that's the case, but it doesn't look like it from your tag history link. There is no dramatic drop or anything else that would indicate "an" automatic edit. I don't think iD Editor offers an "upgrade tag" option for it either. Although, it wouldn't matter if it did, because that's still not "an automated edit." --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

didn’t you go around 2 days ago and have retagged amenity=hospice in Germany, Russia, Britain, and wherever, on a global scale, but 1 upload at a time? It seemed so by looking at your recent edits. I’ll let DWG decide how to react, but IMHO it was a concealed attempt to change the community created tagging. Which of these objects do you actually know in person? On what basis did you change the tags? Are you aware of the automated and semiautomatic mapping guidelines? Please do not wipe the contents of this page again until it is decided how to deal with the mass retagging. —Dieterdreist (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, DWG has found out that my concerns were fortunately unfounded. I ask Adamant1 to excuse this, I’m on mobile, looked up a social_facility=hospice object that formerly was amenity=hospice and found it was you, then I looked at your previous edit and it was the same thing, again the edit before also the same. At this point I wrote to DWG. Taghistory unfortunately only provides data until 2018, and the current state, otherwise I would have noticed that retagging was indeed organic. —Dieterdreist (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)