[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Johnparis]

Thanks for refocusing the discussion, Martin.

I think the new tag should be amenity=diplomatic.

A major reason is the instance where both an embassy and a consulate share
a node. If the new tag is amenity=consulate, you would either need two
nodes in the case where they share a space, which is acceptable but not
ideal, or else a single node with amenity=embassy;consulate, which as I
understand it is on the verge of forbidden.

Another advantage of amenity=diplomatic as the new tag is that it would be
clear that anything tagged "amenity=embassy" has not switched over to the
new model, making quality control easier. If the new tag is
amenity=consulate, it would be unclear whether a consulate tagged as
"amenity=embassy" has been switched to the new model, making quality
control more difficult.

Whatever we agree upon, the new tagging structure won't get into general
use unless (a) it's a preset in ID, and (b) it's rendered in the standard
map.

John







On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181026/6c6bd50b/attachment.html>