<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>The problem I see is that, as I understand it, Allan is proposing to drop some existing diplomatic=* values, such as diplomatic=permanent_mission. And the proposed substitute is to rely on the name=* tag.</div><div><br></div><div>Martin pointed out a problem where something not an embassy has a name like an embassy. But also the proposal to "just search on the name" will fail if, for example, the tagging is something like this:</div><div><br></div><div>office=diplomatic</div><div>diplomatic=other</div><div>name=<span id="gmail-result_box" class="gmail-short_text" tabindex="-1" lang="ar"><span>مهمة تجارية من ليبيا</span></span></div><div><br></div><div>If you're looking for trade missions, I doubt very much that you'll find that one. On the other hand, you will find it if the tag diplomatic=mission is used (I'm not proposing that as a value, but see below).</div><div><br></div><div>On a similar note, I don't think the subtags proposed under "other" will ever gain widespread use. "Other" means "end of the road" to most people. Basically, anything you're thinking of under "other" that warrants its own category should be elevated one level, and "diplomatic=other" should be dropped. The trick is deciding on what categories are significant enough to merit a separate tagging value. Currently you're at "embassy, consulate," but I'd challenge you to go further.</div><div><br></div><div>I find this sentence in one of your emails to be particularly problematic on this subject:</div><div><br></div><div><i>A trade mission (aka "trade commissioner", "commercial office", "trade
representative") can be part of any of the three categories; it is not
accredited separately</i>.<br><br>If someone needs to be an expert on international law to determine the tag, there's a problem with the tagging scheme.<br><br>Looking at taginfo (thanks for the correct link, Martin), I see that there are very, very few subtags currently in use for diplomatic=*<br>embassy</div><div>consulate</div><div>consulate_general -- folded into consulate under current proposal -- this makes sense to me</div><div>honorary_consulate -- folded into consulate -- is that right? My experience with honorary consuls is that they are more like private citizens promoting trade<br></div><div>high_commission -- folded into embassy -- sensible<br>permanent_mission -- not mentioned -- should be folded into embassy?<br>delegation -- not mentioned<br>UN -- not mentioned -- probably should be same as permanent_mission<br></div><div>trade_delegation -- not mentioned<br>visa -- not mentioned (I believe these are for private companies that handle visas on behalf of consulates -- where to categorize?)<br>non_diplomatic -- becomes "other" -- I think this should be dropped entirely</div><div><br></div><div>You also had a partial list of proposed tags for "other" ...</div><div>liaison_office</div><div>representative_office</div><div>subnational</div><div>trade_office</div><div>cultural_center</div><div>assistance_office</div><div><br></div><div>These are all candidates for values of diplomatic=* (I doubt most need their own category, and thus should be dropped). In particular the "subnational" tag is already implied by the existence of a hyphen in the "sending_country" (US-VA for Virginia, for instance).</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, on the question of whether to make the main tag "office" or "diplomatic" -- this reminds me of the discussion several years back for the Internet's top-level domains (.com, .edu, .uk, etc...), which are now free-for-all. As Martin pointed out, certain existing programs (like the <a href="http://openstreetmap.org">openstreetmap.org</a> map) assume a small subset of top-level tags, and adding to that small subset is not easy. So I would advocate for office=diplomatic as the main tag rather than trying to create a new main tag.</div><div><br></div><div>John<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:09 AM Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="m_-3908868985866807378m_9095151730715728616moz-cite-prefix">On 29/10/18 21:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<br>
<div id="m_-3908868985866807378m_9095151730715728616AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">sent from a phone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:18, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the
name </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>here’s an example for a misleading name tag:</div>
<div><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just to make it clear. <br>
<br>
I am only using things already tagged amenity=embassy, but missing a
diplomatic tag and then using the associated name value to determine
what diplomatic value to add. <br>
<br>
Not simply every name tag in the data base... that could lead to
some interesting results. <br>
<br>
There are some things miss-tagged as amenity=embassy .. one is a
school (I have re-tagged that), I think 3 others are brothels...
fixmes in place now. <br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>