[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*
grimpeur78 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 19:17:08 UTC 2019
Am 14. März 2019 19:43:52 MEZ schrieb Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>:
>On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:11, Jan S <grimpeur78 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'll collect more opinions on the abolition of amenity=police.
>Note that every software that uses OSM data would need to be updated
>before amenity=police can be removed. Therefore it is is unlikely that
>amenity=police would disappear soon. Instead, people would have to
>double-tag police stations as amenity=police + police=station in order
>to comply with both the old and the new scheme. This is why i'm unsure
>whether it's sensible to introduce a new tag for police stations.
I know. That's why I had asked earlier whether it would be better to establish a completely new police-tag for all police facilities (probably with double-tagging of police stations during a period of adaptation) or to maintain amenity=police for police stations and establish the police-tag only for all other facilities.
I'm still in favour of the first option. It requires retagging, but we'd end up with a neat and consistent tagging scheme. And software could map amenity=police and police=station as the same. amenity=police would thus slowly be phased out and not have to be eliminated completely in one stroke.
If this seems viable, I would expand the proposal by a migration proposal from amenity=police to police=station.
More information about the Tagging