[Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 14:42:05 UTC 2018

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

If you can find out who mapped them then you can at least ask why they
> tagged them like that.  What information do they think would be lost if
> that tag was removed?

I can tell you why I used covered=booth.  Because, at the time I mapped
those public telephones the wiki said that if
they were in a booth to use covered=booth.  It also said that if I knew the
booth type (I'm not a booth spotter, so I don't)
I could additionally use booth=*.

If covered=booth were removed we'd lose the information that the phone was
in a booth unless booth=* had also
been specified.  If it were replaced with booth=yes (where no booth=* is
already present) I'd be a happy bunny.

I'd still like to see a proposal for how to deal with phones that have an
acoustic hood (which provides partial cover)
as opposed to phones with no cover at all (see picture of Deutsche Telecom
phone posted elsewhere in the thread).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180619/88018316/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list