[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 20:38:02 UTC 2016

On 28/01/2016 1:03 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> On 01/27/16 14:26, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
>> This didn't get any responses yet on the list. II would be interested
>> to hear what other mappers think of this proposal!
> 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
> an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
> normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
> people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
> put him in prison" too.


'Government' usually has a few different 'levels' - county wide, local district, state. They are all 'government'.


Tax, education, transportation, defence, police.

> For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
> delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
> definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
> cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
> controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
> amenity=public_building.

Rather than limiting the use of the tag .. which can cause incorrect limitations in parts of the world
I would rather have all encompassing, and have the local mapper chose what  they want to use locally.

> 2. At the same time, governments all over the world are vastly
> different; in some places, for example, the water works will be closely
> guarded government institutions, and in others, private enterprises in
> competition to each other. Same with railways and many other utilities
> which, at least in socialist countries, tend to be practically
> inseparable from government (except that it will be bloody difficult to
> assign an admin_level to them). I think that it is very likely that
> you'll end up with a vastly varying use of this tag across the world,
> with many values limited in use to a single country plus a few uses
> sprinkled across the world because nobody understood that a certain type
> of office really only exists in three Philippine provinces.
> 3. Personally I feel that in addition to the above, there's a major
> difference between places where the government provides a service to the
> citizen - where you go to do something or have something done - and
> other places where the government essentially revolves in its own sauce
> and you're not even let in to watch. The former is an useful "this is
> where you go if you need to <X>" information, the latter is essentially
> just for fancy lettering on the map because you won't usually go there
> for anything. Much like the difference between a Domino's pizza place
> and the Domino's central franchise building. I think that it might make
> sense to find different tags for the government "outlets" or "serivce
> points" as opposed to government office buildings.

While you may 'not go there' it still exists on the ground and should be suitably mapped.

So... I think this means people want more detail for the proposed tag office=government.

? So what detail is wanted?


government:level=federal,state,local ?

This could also be operator tag = federal_government, etc ... that would be more consistent?

use admin_level tag from the boundaries tag




More information about the Tagging mailing list