User talk:Claire Halleux/Tag:boundary=health
Very interesting idea! And I can't see any use of boundary=health in tag info, so this would be the first time such boundaries would be included in OSM.
About the health_level=*, I would make it independent of the administrative levels (admin_level=*), but at the same time following a similar schema, so using first even numbers. For example, for this RDC case, I would suggest health_level=6 for ZS boundaries and health_level=8 for AS boundaries, keeping health_level=2 and health_level=4 for posible supra health levels that could be created by future RDC governments.
About the health structure node, if you mean the Hôpital Général de Référence for the ZS boundary relation and the Centre de Santé for the AS boundary relation, there wouldn't be any problem. It would an equivalent relation member to the admin_centre=* member that we have for boundary=administrative relations, that is also a node.
I think that we could use that same tag (admin_centre=*) for the boundary=health relations. In this case, for consistence with the rest of the relation tagging, it would naturaly be health_centre=*, but this would be confusing, as health_centre is already a value (not key) for health_facility:type=health_centre of the Healthcare_2.0 proposal (health_centre as key appears only 3 times according to the tag info). Maybe health_admin=*??
Also, a tagging schema for the segments of the relations should be added. One possible one:
- boundary=health
- health_level=* (The highest level of all boundary=health relations the segment belongs to (similar to what we do with boundary=administrative relations))
One last question, just for curiosity: Do all those boundaries share the same boundaries of administrative relations? Because in that case, we would only have to pick boundary=administrative segments and create the corresponding boundary=health relations.
--edvac (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Edvac, thanks a lot for your nice and interesting answer. Actually in DRC, above AS and ZS, there are also DS and then the province level (hopefully fitting (or supposed to be) with the administrative province limits. I support the idea of using separate similar scheme
--Claire Halleux (talk) 23:00, 03 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that there is the DS level too (I am subscribed to this wiki, so I read it already ;) ). I didn't know that the province level was also a health level to add to the scheme. In any case, what I said about "keeping health_level=2 and health_level=4 for posible supra health levels that could be created by future RDC governments" makes now even more sense, now that there are actually two higher health levels: DS and province. But values (2, 4, 6 and 8) aren't written on stone; they can be changed/adapted easily.
Even if it is only for curiosity, I'd like to follow how this interesting idea unfolds...