Multi-dentist office

[Minh_Nguyen (Minh Nguyễn)]

This is also worth reiterating for anyone who’s intrigued by the idea of adding a single node to multiple “feature relations”:

@Minh_Nguyen

Unfortunately, in these cases, I think the multiple-relation approach is a nonstarter, because it isn’t possible to arrange the relations in a particular order. A relation can indicate the order of its members, but a node can’t indicate the order in which its containing relations should be listed.

I suspect there would be some desire to retain information about the relative order of the providers on the sign, if not the relative locations in the office.

[Fabi2 (Fabian)]

@IanH

Why are multiple individuals being all mapped on a node. The example of professional offices (example uses doctors and lawyers) is trying to compress a large practice, clinic or large area into a single node. Most professional don’t work that way if only for basic privacy requirements. Even when one is shared, an office can be represented by adding the list of occupants who commonly share it during the week.

This office of four midwifes had a website with all the mapped contact infomation on it, so there are no privacy concerns, as I only add data from public sources. You can see, how this and the following examples are solved with healthcare=*. To map this facility, you have to create four offices, but this is only one!

But I have another example of the mapping reality for you: this is a building containing four independent physician offices, I added the offices around one and a half year ago, but not the physicians of the offices, as the website cointains no specialty details for the operating physician. A year ago, a SC user reported, that there a multiple offices in the building and every have other openening hours, as he was asked for the opening hours, in this note. The Healthcare 2.0 data from me, is still correct and was added before the note, including the openening hours. Then four month ago, a expirienced Berlin mapper “solved” the note by making the health centre a clinic (so hopefully SC will not as again) and leaving incorrect data of the healthcare=*-shema as they are, instead of creating for independend offices, or, as a bare minimum, correct the incorrect specialties.

This is a integrated facility, operated by a holding, where one of the operators runs a office for orthopaedics inside. In addition, it contains a independent psychotherapeutic office of two psychologists for behavioural pschotherapy and an office of seven physiotherapists with different additonal training. I updated the data to match the information from the updated website. How should all these information, including the reationship of the facilities mapped without using relations?

Where you want to get the information of the inside of the building from in an easy way? Most buildings in OSM are not mapped indoors until now. Do you think mapper add this information, whene it is already to hard to correct the data or add the individual offices in some cases?

That amenity=doctors now only allows one office, but was widely used before for facilities of at least one independent physician office, make the situation not better, as the German wiki page of amenity=clinic now allows using this tag on health centres of several independent offices.

But, if you think, that this ditailed information is not needed, then we should remove such useless tagging as for the type of timetable on public transport platforms, as no one need this information, as the is always some type of timetable there. The information if an fire hydrant is dry barrel or wet barrel, is also not needed for using it. You can find more examples, where such “useless” information are mapped.