[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

[Tobias Wrede]

Hi,

Am 15.05.2017 um 12:45 schrieb muzirian:
> I think I tried to address suggestions made.Are you suggesting to 
> scrap the proposal and use post office instead?
>
> Regards

Well, when reading through the comments of the no voters (and the 
comments here in the thread) I believe that it was only a small concern 
that office would fit better than amenity. Actually, I myself find 
amenity much better than office. The bigger concerns focused indeed 
around how to reasonably differentiate and use a=post_office and 
a/o=courier, especially in worlds where there is no clear 
differentiation (any more).

I'm totally for introducing some new tagging allowing for describing 
courier services. But I am at the same time against setting another 
narrowly defined tag into stone where we need a broader approach. I 
believe we need something that
a) is able to describe a "traditional" postal service as it is still 
found in many countries by whatever that means there,
b) is able to describe outlets of private/new mail services,
c) is able to describe outlets of private/new parcel/courier services,
d) is able to describe any mixture or subset thereof,
e) is able to describe mail and courier related services offered by 
other amenities on behalf of the mail/courier companies (shipping 
parcels in a grocery store, mailing letters in a tobacco shop, ...).

I don't propose any ready solution for that. It could mean we stay with 
just amenity=post_office and add appropriate sub tags (something like 
post_office:mail=yes/no/shipping, 
post_office_parcels=yes/no/shipping/receiving, 
post_office:banking=yes/no, ....). Or something else.

Coming back to your original question: I don't see how mainly changing 
the proposal from a=courier to o=courier addresses any of those raised 
questions I just described.

Tobi