[Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 23 16:53:58 UTC 2018

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Bryan Housel <bhousel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Per Paul Allen’s suggestion, mappers can continue use `covered=yes` for
> telephones with a hood.

Would it be better to abuse booth rather than covered and have booth=hood?
That way covered can be dropped
entirely for use with phones.  It also accords with the Wikipedia article
that uses the term booth both for things I'd
call booths and things I'd call hoods.

> Opened https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging/issues/8  to track next
> actions for this.
> "Consensus on list is that covered=booth offers no additional information
> over booth=* and conflicts with existing semantics for covered=yes/no.

> We'll replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes and add a
> booth=yes to any features that don't already have a booth tag.”

Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with no
hood, no booth, and no cover, so
adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error.  And somebody else posted
a pic of phones with hoods that were
under a roof on pillars, which might be tagged with covered=yes on the
phone rather than within building=roof.

I'd say replace covered=booth with booth=yes if no booth=* is already
specified; remove covered=* if booth=* is
specified.  I think that going further than that makes unsafe assumptions.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180623/02332685/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list