<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">First of all, big thanks
to all discussants who have pitched ideas and asked probing
questions--I think we are moving toward a more elegant solution
than what I originally proposed.<br>
<br>
As of 28 October 2018, one week into the RFC, here is where I
think we are (stay tuned for further developments, film at 11):<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">a) consulates
are not embassies;</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">b) neither embassies nor
consulates are amenities;</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">c) embassies and
consulates are government offices, but there is a trend toward
thinking office=diplomatic is suboptimal and diplomatic=* needs
to be elevated to primary tag status;</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">d) diplomatic=* would
include only [embassy, consulate, other], with "other" covering
anomalies without status under the VCDR or VCCR (e.g., AIT,
TECRO, and subnational representations);</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">e) further refining of
the type of facility would be apparent in the name=* tag,
obviating the need for additional subtags; and</font><br>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">f)
diplomatic:services:[non-immigrant visas, immigrant visas,
citizen services]=[yes/no] tags would be desirable.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I have two questions:<br>
1) Should I withdraw the current amenity=consulate proposal and
submit a new one based on the above (no harm to my ego involved; I
am not emotionally tied to the original proposal), or<br>
2) Modify the current proposal to fit the above with an eye to a
vote on or about November 4?<br>
<br>
Or is this premature and should I allow discussion on the current
proposal to continue?<br>
<br>
In any event please note that I have been posting most e-mail
responses to the Talk:Proposed features/Consulate page at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate</a>
so the record of our discussion will be preserved. I have also
added some counterproposals and suggestion modifications to the
main proposal page.<br>
<br>
Many thanks to one and all again,<br>
cheers,<br>
apm-wa</font><br>
</body>
</html>