Proposal:Hospital: Emergency

Hospital: Emergency
Proposal status:	Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by:	Batchoy
Tagging:	emergency=yes|no
Statistics:
Rendered as:	see subpage

Rationale

I feel that there is a need to differentiate between those hospitals which have an emergency facilities ie A&E in the UK and ER in the USA, and those which don't.

Applies to

Nodes.

Usage

<tag k="amenity" v="hospital"/>
<tag k="emergency" v="<yes|no"/>

If no 'emergency' key is specified then the icon should default to the 'no' option.

Examples

	Hospital with Emergency facilities <tag k="amenity" v="hospital"/> <tag k="emergency" v="yes"/>
	Hospital with no Emergency facilities <tag k="amenity" v="hospital"/> <tag k="emergency" v="no"/> or no 'emergency' key <tag k="amenity" v="hospital"/>

Icon Design

These icons are part of a sequence of medicine related icons I am/shall be proposing:

	Hospital with Emergency facilities	This proposal
	Hospital with No Emergency facilites	This proposal
	Doctor's surgery	Refer: Proposed Features/GP Surgery
	Medical clinic	Refer: Proposed Features/Clinic (Medical)
	Dispensing pharmacy	Refer: Proposed Features/Pharmacy
	Non-dispensing pharmacy	Refer: Proposed Features/Pharmacy

The red cross is going out of fashion as a symbol for medical aid, the green and white combination is becoming much more the norm. Also switching away from the red cross frees it up to be used for 'Red Cross' associated features.

The circle icon differentiates the treatment centres ie Hospital, GP Surgery and the clinic from the commercial pharmacies which are square. The solid green background for the Hospital icon indicates in-patient facilities, and similary the white background for the GP Surgery and Clinic which don't. The use of a white centre in the cross for the emergency hospital, makes the icon more visible on the map in comparison to the non-emergency hospital and as it does for the pharmacies.

Batchoy 18 November 2006

Notes and Comments

It has been pointed out to me (Proposed Features/Hospital: Emergency) that these symbols are a little on the light sight and so there is a potenital problem of the showing up well, I am bere for proposing that they be darkened up:

The XML code for all these symbols can be found here.

Batchoy 16:51 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting

• I approve this proposal. MikeCollinson 04:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC) This is also very applicable in rural Australia.
• I approve this proposal. (for the darker variation). I'm less shore of the second tag, but no better suggestions were proposed. Ben. 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --KristianThy 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --User:David.earl 18:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Pending a redraft and to show support for 'emergency=yes' only. This should also be made applicable to clinics and doctors' offices. --achadwick 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal as it stands, without prejudice. Chriscf 14:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

Voting is for the darker version of the Symbols and for the revised tag:

<tag k="amenity" v="hospital" />
<tag k="class" v="emergency" />

-- Batchoy 10:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting Ended

This Has been Approved. Is this enough votes for it to be moved to the standardised tag sections? Ben. 03:17 3rd February 2007 (UTC)

• Batchoy, I'd like to add emergency=yes|no to the Map Features amenity=hospital entry ... but somewhere along the way it seems to have got transmorgified to class=emergency. Which do you prefer? Me, I'd like the original as it is possible to explicitly flag a hospital as NOT having an emergency facility - very important in rural Australia for example. MikeCollinson 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC) mike at ayeltd biz

As I understand it, a proposal needs 8 unanimous support votes, or a clear majority with no fewer than 15 support votes. This hasn't been met. I suggest that the proposal be redrafted. Chriscf 09:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To this end, I'm marking the proposal as abandoned - it dates back to 2006, and other than two added this week, the votes were almost two years old. If anyone wants to take this up, they should create a new proposal. Chriscf 13:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chriscf, please check your sources. There is no rule on the number of support votes a proposal "needs". (There is also no guaranteed acceptance of the outcome even if a proposal has taken all voting hurdles). I see from the planet file that "emergency" is used more than 80 times in Europe already, and I strongly suggest moving it to Map Features on that basis. --Frederik Ramm 19:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's been agreed that this is the best way to tag this, moving this to Map Features is a bad idea. See the talk page. Chriscf 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)