<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/11/18 17:20, Johnparis wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEVvu1MY_vjz5TBiuq8bACAq7X3aJYT6QEvDKoNrrYr3jtq+rA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original
proposal of keeping amenity=embassy and adding
amenity=consulate. So I believe your first summary is
inaccurate.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Instead what I have seen is suggesting that
amenity=diplomatic is possibly a better fit than
office=diplomatic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I would suggest dropping the first alternative entirely
and modifying the second to read:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* shift to amenity=diplomatic </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
+1 <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEVvu1MY_vjz5TBiuq8bACAq7X3aJYT6QEvDKoNrrYr3jtq+rA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>or office=diplomatic (which one to use has yet to be
decided) and use the existing diplomatic=* additional
(secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or
other, then use embassy, consulate, and other (or some other
euphemism as yet undetermined) as additional (tertiary) tags
to specify further the type of diplomatic or non-diplomatic
mission as needed.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The problem I have with office=* is that it is not meant to outline
the premisses (parking, entry road - right out to the external
fence). Some have been mapped to there extents, others are single
nodes. <br>
<br>
The advantage is that it is a simple 1:1 change that removes eh
problem value of 'embassy' and replaces it with 'diplomatic'.<br>
<br>
A problem will be the lack of rendering for some time. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEVvu1MY_vjz5TBiuq8bACAq7X3aJYT6QEvDKoNrrYr3jtq+rA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:14 AM Allan Mustard
<<a href="mailto:allan@mustard.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">allan@mustard.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Colleagues,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Eleven days into the RFC, we have three competing
lines of thought regarding even a primary tag for
diplomatic missions, and similarly little consensus on
additional (secondary and tertiary) tags that would
preserve and expand information. The three lines of
thought are:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* retain amenity=* as the primary tag but tag
consulates separately from embassies (this is the
original proposal, which after being criticized
resurfaced a few days ago).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing
diplomatic=* additional (secondary) tag to specify
whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use
embassy, consulate and other as additional (tertiary)
tags to specify further the type of diplomatic or
non-diplomatic mission as needed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* "promote" diplomatic=* to primary tag status,
with embassy, consulate, and other (or some other
euphemism as yet undetermined) as the key values as
well as additional (secondary) tags that are used to
specify further the type of diplomatic or
non-diplomatic mission as needed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nearly all the discussion is posted to the talk
page of Proposed Features/Consulate in the wiki ,<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate</a>
for those interested in reviewing it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now, as we approach the two-week mark, it would be
helpful to get a sense of whether there is any
consensus out there about which of the three main
lines of thought is preferred over the others. The
preferences of the community responding to this RFC
are not clear to me. Please let me know which
direction you believe would be best, bearing in mind
both the realities of the OSM universe (relative
sophistication of mappers, the desire not to burden
unduly renderers of maps, and the degree to which
anybody reads the wiki articles) and our shared desire
to make OSM as accurate and information-rich as
possible. Which of the above approaches do you think
is "best" by those criteria?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Very best regards to one and all who have
contributed to this discussion, and many thanks for
your ideas and expressions of concern. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>apm-wa</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>