I asked the same question on the Germany section but I think this is a global issue that would benefit from a wider audience.
According to the wiki, the tag social_facility:for=disabled refers to physically handicapped people specifically, and excludes all other kinds of disabled people.
This raises the question of how to tag nursing homes for intellectually disabled people, such as this fairly large institution in Germany. Intellectually disabled people aren’t seniors (although they can be) and they aren’t physically handicapped either. On the German forum it was suggested to use social_facility:for=mental_health but that is also something else entirely - it refers to mentally disabled people, but not intellectually disabled people.
I’d say social_facility:for=intellectual_disability already has 56 uses, and comes close. I dislike it, though, because intellectually_disabled would be more in line with other values like disabled. But can we be picky? I guess it’s your best shot
Sometimes the documentation on the Wiki makes so little sense that it is best to ignore it. Maybe this is one of those cases?
As a general rule, if you have to read the Wiki to learn what a tag is supposed to mean, but the tag means something different in real life, then often the real-world usage of the tag doesn’t align well with the Wiki-documented meaning anyway. To fix this it’s often easier to change the Wiki to fit the data, than to change the data to fit the Wiki.
Personally, I’d much prefer if disabled could be used for an unspecific group of people with disabilities, while we also have 2 more specific ones: intellectually_disabled and physically_disabled. From looking at the use of disabled, it’s been used for all kinds of disabilities, and definitely not limited to physical disabilities.
Sometimes, it’s also hard to say what exactly the target audience is, because these social facilities are trying to avoid any form of exclusion or segregation. Most of the times, you won’t find them use words like “disability”.
disabled already refers to basically physical disability elsewhere. disabled= , capacity:disabled= , parking_space=disabled , etc. They shouldn’t be affected.
In common language, “disabled” refers to mostly physical disability.
It’s complicated by being an official or legal status. That’s is determined professionally and procedurally. For intellectual disability, there are several degrees. This was already discussed for physical disability. Talk:Key:parking space - OpenStreetMap Wiki.
Intellectual disability is a neurodevelopmental disability, which is a mental developmental disability. Disorder or impairment is more general.
Some facilities may not be serving disability only, but also those with disorders or impairments. Then again, most facilities are usually intended for either physical or mental impairment, considering they have different needs. Is there really a significant need for being unspecified?
I hope that this form of disabled refers to people who are considered disabled by local law in a way that allows them the use of parking spaces for disabled. It’s my understanding that most countries have different ways to determine who’s allowed to use these parking spaces, so it’s not necessarily a 1:1 correlation to social_facility:for=disabled. In Germany, it’s regulated via a “Schwerbehindertenausweis”[1], which is similar to the US’s Disability Parking Plate, or the British “Blue Badge”.
But while being deaf or blind, suffering from congestive heart failure, or severe asthma can get you allowance to use parking spaces for disabled, it doesn’t mean that you will be accepted into a social facility for physically disabled people. It’s completely separated here, while it sure does have some overlaps.
That might be where you live, but that doesn’t apply to everywhere. In Britain, for example, the official definition of “disabitity” is the following:
It’s explicitly referring to both, physical and mental impairments. While I’m not British, I know several Bri’ish people using that term exactly as this.
Having an unspecific value is good for refinement. A lot of these facilities don’t have a lot of information available when you survey them – you will have to look at their webpage, or sometimes even write emails, because it’s still unclear. Whether refinement happens by using a different value (like in shop=yes vs. shop=kiosk), or using a subtag (disabled=* – but that one’s an access tag, so disability=physical/mental? Naaa), I don’t care much.
A document with which you prove that you suffer from a severe disability, and also the grade of your disability ↩︎
I’m not disagreeing with the difference in criteria for parking, or the definition in laws and professional working. I’m saying it’s not the best idea to use disabled for different meanings, and physical disability is more often encountered especially for geographical data.
Eg if a =social_facility by age or other conditions has a capacity:disabled= detailed, is it more likely to mean mental or physical disability? Either case, or regardless of whether it should be considered unspecified, using them for different meanings should be avoided.
I’m also not disagreeing with the need for unspecified data in general, but the realm of unknown should be beyond physical vs mental disability. Is there a likely level of unknown where you know it’s some disability, but not even physical vs mental disability?
For comparison, there’s =mental_health and =diseased . Then do we need =health to be unspecific? It should be reasonably possible to determine whether it’s =mental_health or =diseased , considering how the facilities or services work. For the case of both of them, explicitly using =mental_health;diseased would be better. Using =health to be unspecific is, too unspecific, and the consideration of health problems usually refers to physical health. If a facility advertise they accept residents based on health conditions, you would assume this is for physical health. Otherwise this would be clarified.
Another example, do we need =addicted for unspecific addiction? And even =substance_addiction (also note “substance” commonly refers to drugs) vs =behavior_addiction ? It should be enough to have =drug_addicted , alcohol, smoking, and video games, etc. The facilities for them are reasonably easy to distinguish enough.
Even if being that unspecified is needed, there’s a further problem. Does a =disabled means unspecified for how it should be used, or can it be a shortcut for both physical and mental disability considering the definition at the same time? Limiting the unspecific extent to physical vs mental disability is more relevant and usable. There’s no need for too many additional degrees of being unspecific. That’s makes it even more vague and confusing.
I’m aware of it, and the change to include mental disability restricting the ability to go out (as a “may be eligible” condition?) a few years ago. But similarly in the past, =disabled was defined for physical disability as far back to the =social_facility proposal, more than being the existing wiki documentation. Given there’s =disabled , =intellectual_disability , =mental_health , =dementia , etc , defining =disabled as either or both disability types, and introducing =physical_disability now or later doesn’t offer significant benefits. Proposal:Social facility - OpenStreetMap Wiki
For that matter, if capacity:disabled= is interpreted as only disabled badges including qualifying mental disability, it won’t be very suitable on other features that could have a use for capacity:disabled= of a different criteria. It’s better to more slightly more precise, and not assume social_facility:for=disabled to include mental disability automatically.
I’m not insisting on “adding” a new meaning to =disabled, but because of the absence of intellectually_disabled on the wiki, =disabled has already been used heavily for both: physical and intellectual disability. So it would merely be documenting the status quo that “it could mean either or both at the same time”.
I can only speak for Germany, so I’m assuming it’s different in every country. But if you’re trying to find information about these type of facilities over here, they will never write “we’re a facility for people with mental disability”. Instead, you will see an explanation why being inclusive is good, and that they are an inclusive facility allowing people to take part in everyday life, etc. pp. It’s very frustrating
Update: Because someone messages me about it: what I meant was, that a lot of special needs facilities don’t clearly say what special needs group they are targeting, The only exceptions seem to be those for the blind and deaf, but everything else, I usually have to make a call to be sure. And I don’t think we can demand that from everyone.
Since social_facility:for has always accepted multiple values, I’d suggest to use physically_disabled;intellectually_disabled if you explicitly mean both, and disabled if it’s not 100% certain.
Alas, if I could turn back time, I’d say social_facility:for=addicted + addiction=drugs;nicotine.
But the original question of the thread was twofold, and it seems you’re detracting from the problem at hand. There’s just 2 question:
How do we tag institutions for intellectually disabled people?
Is a good part of those tagged as =disabled already including intellectually disabled people? If yes, shouldn’t the wiki be changed to “uncertain which one”, and introduce another value physically_disabled, which can be used to clarify further?
I know that, in theory, some of these facilities are even more specific. Some are only for those in wheelchairs, some are only for the blind, and some only for people with trisomy 21. But I didn’t want to open that can of worms.
