[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Oct 26 08:30:46 UTC 2018


Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 08:38 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefitz1 at gmail.com>:

> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:12, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> what kind of proofs Warin’s point, because .gov is for US government
>> domains while you are not in the US.
>>
> But for a counter example :-):
>
> Australian Embassy in Paris
>
>    - Embassy Emails:
>       - General questions : info.paris at dfat.gov.au
>       - Consular and passport questions: consular.paris at dfat.gov.au
>
>

it is not a counter example, it is the same situation: australian embassy
in France using an australian government domain.

FWIW, I don't have strong feelings about the landuse value to apply, but I
do not believe we should use _only_ landuse to define any kind of _feature_
(and embassies and consulates are "features" in my reading).
So regardless of the landuse value that applies or not, we should resolve
the question how to tag 1 consulate or 1 embassy.

Even if we have not yet found agreement on consulates, it seems we do agree
that the "diplomatic" key can be useful in this context.

Question is whether we would want to introduce a new amenity=diplomatic tag
as general tag or if we keep amenity=embassy and introduce
amenity=consulate (which still would leave room for a diplomatic key for
subclasses and which still would let us add more detail about provided
services etc. with other related tags).

Is there someone who believes we should stick to the current scheme and
keep consulates as a subclass of amenity=embassy, although they are not
embassies?

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181026/37b6d8c6/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list