[talk-ch] Tagging of facilities for childcare in Switzerland
simon at poole.ch
Wed Dec 29 15:02:53 CET 2021
Am 28.12.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Toggenburger Lukas:
> Is my understanding correct that you propose to tag only case A as amenity=kindergarten and everything else as amenity=childcare? So that would be:
Yes, because on the one hand "Kindergarten" as used in CH is not fuzzy
and not supporting duck-tagging is always fraught with issues (it has
Kindergarten in its name etc. so why shouldn't it be tagged as a
KIndergarten, it would be good to get some input from mappers in the
French and Italian speaking regions on if this actually works for them).
On the other hand, there are tonnes of fuzziness in all other aspects
of childcare, making it an obvious choice to use a different container.
> - A: (what I call "Kindergarten" in german): Part of the mandatory swiss school education for children of the age of approx. 4 to 6.
> - B: ("Kita"): Where working parents can bring their children (approx. aged 0 to 4) during office hours (up to 5 full days a week). There is a definition at  that defines a Kita/use-case B as: Cares periodically for children aged 3 months until the age where compulsory school ends, on at least 5 half-days, offering 6 or more slots.
> - D: ("Hort"): Where children of age approx. 4+ go before/between/after mandatory school visits, so parents can work.
It needs to be clear that these are all German imports and don't have
hard and fast definitions here (and again it would be a good idea to
know how other regions with less German influence view this). The other
problem is that outside of the name the detailed information is often
not actually available on the ground, so tagging might often boil down
to an amenity=childcare name=xxxxx (again another reason to separate
Kindergarten and general childcare).
> - C: ("Spielgruppe"): Where children go approx. once per week for only a few hours. The legal hurdles to operate such a facility are lower than those for use-case B, but seem to differ for each canton. Food/lunch is normally not offered.
> - E: ("Krabbelgruppe"): A place where parents together with their children (aged approx. 0 to 2) meet regularly (e.g. once per week) for a small number of hours.
What I wrote above applies here too, but specifically are these not
simply events and not infrastructure, particularly E and as a
consequence should not actually be mapped? Analogous to your average
school gym ("Turnhalle") in Switzerland; there will be all kind of
activities from different operators over the week (Kitu, Jugi, etc etc
etc) that are not mappable as such (obviously building, address etc of
where they are taking place should be present).
> - A: amenity=kindergarten, preschool=yes, operator:type=public, min_age=4, max_age=6, isced:level:2011=0
> - B: amenity=childcare, nursery=yes, operator:type=private, min_age=3 months, breakfast=yes, lunch=yes
> - C: amenity=childcare, operator:type=private, min_age=4
> - D: amenity=childcare, after_school=yes, operator:type=private, min_age=4,
> - E: ?
> I'm looking forward to your input!
> Von: talk-ch <talk-ch-bounces at openstreetmap.ch> im Auftrag von Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2021 11:10
> An: talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
> Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] Tagging of facilities for childcare in Switzerland
> Am 26.12.2021 um 16:51 schrieb Toggenburger Lukas:
>> - Do you agree in deprecating and manually retagging amenity=childcare instances?
> As you probably know the mapping of childcare facilities has a rather
> mixed, if not to say controversial history in OSM. But the infamous
> original amenity=childcare proposal didn't fail because it doesn't make
> sense to tag different things differently, but because of weaknesses in
> the proposal itself. But outside of the specific proposal it the use of
> the tagging has been largely unproblematic and in the same order of
> magnitude as amenity=kindergarten in CH.
> In any case of the German-speaking countries I know of, only Austria
> -actually- uses "Kindergarten" (irl) for other things than pre-school
> education and I would consider it too confusing to treat general
> childcare and Kindergarten as the same thing here. Additionally in CH we
> have a very clear delineation as all cantons provide at least one year
> of Kindergarten and all with the exception GR require at least one year
> of mandatory attendance. I can't see a rationale for mixing up the 1st
> level of state provided education with everything else that has a
> clearly different purpose.
> The other reason to not mix things up is while we have a formal legal
> definition of Kindergarten we don't really have it for anything else,
> outside of permission being required to offer such services for children
> under the age of 12 (there are some Cantons that regulate a bit more in
> detail) . So really those clear cut categories don't exist outside of
> whatever the facility uses in their name.
> talk-ch mailing list
> talk-ch at openstreetmap.ch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the talk-ch