[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Fri Mar 15 08:17:31 UTC 2019

Mar 15, 2019, 7:37 AM by grimpeur78 at gmail.com:

> Am 15. März 2019 00:19:22 MEZ schrieb althio <> althio.forum at gmail.com <mailto:althio.forum at gmail.com>> >:
> >Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>> > If this seems viable, I would expand the proposal by a migration
> >proposal from amenity=police to police=station
>>> I don’t think we should abandon amenity=police and it will likely not
> >happen unless people tag so many different things with the tag that it
> >becomes useless. My primary interest is in specifying the kind of
> >police and facility, a generic amenity=police on top of that does not
> >harm. If the new scheme becomes so widespread that every police station
> >also has a more specific police=* tag, we can still decide to remove
> >the amenity=police tags.
> That sounds reasonable. So we'd keep amenity=police as the general indicator of police facilities
Public-facing police facilities. For example police warehouse should not be tagged with it
(and even if some are tagged this way I think that everybody would consider it as a tagging

>  and use police=* as a sub-tag to specify the type of facility.
It should be noted that it can be used also without amenity=police for non-public

>  amenity=police would be reduced to indicate that the tag is used for all police facilities
I am against changing meaning of an established tag (even if it has some mistaggings).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190315/7198ccd9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list