Why all Places are non-standard in SNOMED and related ICD10CM concepts don't have mapping?

[dimshitc]

If I look at not-mapped ICD10CM concepts, I notice that all these Y92.* (Place of occurrence of the external cause) codes don't have mapping.
Previously they had mapping to the concepts from the Environment branch, which become non-standard in the recent release.

I understand that currently there's no use cases, but they might appear in a future.
What was the reason to make this branch non-standard, and keeping those ICD10 concepts without mapping, and what's the benefit of this?

[TinyRickC137]

@dimshitc We discussed it in the working group, and also here and here. Personally, I agree with you - there is absolutely no need to destandardise any concept, just because someone doesn't like them and thinks that there is no usecase. However, we discussed it multiple times and made a decision, so for the system to work properly, it will make sense to follow community choices.

What I find ironic, is this:

Comprehensive Coverage:
Every event in a patient's healthcare experience (e.g. Conditions, Procedures, Exposures to Drug, etc.) and some of the administrative artifacts of the healthcare system (e.g. Visits, Care Sites, etc.) are covered within the domain. This principle includes concept coverage and mapping coverage (mappings from non-standard concepts to standard concepts).

Location concepts are semantically close to Care Sites, but are not Care Sites according to Snomed, because they are in the hierarchy of physical locations. So we can say principles don't apply to these concepts, but in reality, we created one more never-ending discussion.

[aostropolets]

This does look like Care Site except that it's not where the care was given but where the accident happened. I'd argue that this information doesn't belong to covered space, should be classified as junk internally and comprehensive coverage doesn't apply (siding with Oleg). Of course unless a use case occurs.