<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>Hmm, yes. I agree with you that covered_by would not fit it, but we still have the thing that some mappers would be ok with extending the key covered=* with more specific values and others won't. But as I see it, covered still has some other values than yes/no exactly for this thing (covered=arcade etc., but the difference is, that this is for roads etc).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I do not think it's too late for changing anything if there are good reasons.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would replace covered=booth with covered=closed_phone_box because "booth" is not a very good value (not british).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>closed_phone_box I would choose because there are also open ones, please see this one: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_booth#/media/File:Telephone_box_with_internet_access.JPG" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_booth#/media/File:Telephone_box_with_internet_access.JPG</a></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>the opposite would then be the one in the picture above, open_phone_box.</div>
<div>A phone hood is again another one (sides not going to the floor).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>phone:enclosure=xxx would be an option, but it would overlap with covered=booth then. Also, I would prefer to add something like phone_box:type or something instead of booth=* to describe the type of booth/phone box. It's because we have public_bookcase:type=phone_box already and phone_box:type would then also fit for that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>--Lukas</div>
<div style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px 10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag, 04. Juni 2020 um 14:56 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Marc M." <marc_marc_irc@hotmail.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> tagging@openstreetmap.org<br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [Tagging] Do we need more different tagging for telephone covers?</div>
<div>Hello,<br/>
<br/>
Le 04.06.20 à 13:33, Lukas via Tagging a écrit :<br/>
> the question is whether key covered=* is suitable for this.<br/>
> Or should we stay with a stricter covered=yes/no<br/>
> and maybe add something like covered_by=phone_hood or something?<br/>
<br/>
key=yes/no with some more specific value is the common logic.<br/>
so covered=yes covered_by==<value> is imho unwanted.<br/>
covered/yes/no/more precise values do the job.<br/>
for exemple we have building=yes and you can refine with =house<br/>
or entrance=yes and you can refine with =main/starcase/..<br/>
<br/>
Regards,<br/>
Marc<br/>
<br/>
_______________________________________________<br/>
Tagging mailing list<br/>
Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br/>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>