[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop as post-partner

[Robin Burek]

Am 15.02.2021 um 17:41 schrieb Paul Allen:
> So if you consider Foo Post and Bar Post the equivalent of Deutsche
> Post then why not map them as sub-post offices? Or why not re-tag all
> German sub-post offices using this scheme?

sub-post offices -> Like I wrote before, often there are no extra
counters, sometimes you can only send mail, sometimes parcels an so on.
That aren't post-offices. And exactly because of that a lot of germans
haven't tagged them. An additional node with an postoffice is incorrect.
Why we don't have retagged them - because we first wanted to start this
proposal - I already had the feeling that this is not being welcomed
everywhere. I don't see why I should touch every point twice just
because something else comes out of the proposal in the end.

>     What would be your suggestion for a clearer naming?
>
>     What I thought about was: change postal_partner to service:postal
>     or something (see my proposal Case 2) analogical to
>     service:vehicels or service:bicycle
>
>
> Postal_partner was not a good choice because it led me to misread that
> the courier companies were the partners (obviously there is no need to
> specify that the shop is a partner because you're tagging the shop).  But
> it's the "postal" part that is the problem for me, because in the UK most
> people would not interpret that as meaning delivery services by couriers.
For this situation we have discriptions in the wiki....  There are some
points, that don't fit in every opinion.
Does it have bad effects if you use this suggestion (with post_partner,
service:postal or what ever) for the "acceptance points / deliveries"
for your courier services? You can tell the difference by the respective
brand / operator. In our case, it would sometimes lead to multiple nodes
or incorrect information.
After all this conversation I would rather tend towards
"service:post_partner" or "service:postal"Â
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210215/d72f3b96/attachment.htm>