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

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 16.05.2017 um 10:27 schrieb Marc Gemis:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For shops that offer courier services as a minor part / not primarily, it should be a property for the shop, maybe with the carrier in the key, e.g. amenity=fuel, courier:UPS=yes?
> Maybe it's a silly idea, but why do not we map this as 2 nodes  ? This
> way, we do not have to come up with 2 sets of keys (one for
> amenity=courier and one on anything else).
> Both nodes could be connected via a "shop"-relation or whatever you
> want to name it.
>
>
We need to differentiate a bit more. Here in Germany and I believe it 
happened elsewhere we have former post offices (Deutsche Post) that were 
integrated into other shops keeping almost all of their former functions 
and services, except providing PO boxes and extended business services 
(mass mailing etc.). But then their is a high varity of different 
service combinations. Some offer (some) banking services, some don't. 
Some offer registered mail, others don't. Some just ship parcels, some 
have also regular mail. All of these offer Deutsche Post (incl. DHL) 
services. And then there are the competitors, too.

What I want to say is it's not just placing a second node somewhere. We 
need to define where post_office stops and where courier begins or how 
we describe the situations otherwise.

Tobi