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

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 13:16:21 UTC 2021


Suggestion: postal_services next to post_office.
You could use post_office then only in the long term just to name those 
buildings that are historically just post_offices. Smoothly you 
transition and promote use of postal_services.

In the same context, and in regard to your proposal Georg to use 
multiple values in a primary key, again here locally of course, don't 
know if it happens elsewhere, we have post offices still owned and 
operated by the national postal services, but they have developed a 
licensing system to allow people to use these for other purposes.  So me 
can be hardly called post_office anymore, although they still carry that 
signage.  They still have a small counter where you get postal services 
but the rest of the post_office is turned into a food court or a market 
or even a shopping mall.

How should a mapper indicate what it is by using multiple value in one 
key, how should he decide what is it's primary use or significance to 
the community?

Greetings,

Bert Araali

On 28/02/2021 13:59, Georg wrote:
>
>
> Am 2021-02-28 um 03:30 schrieb Minh Nguyen:
>
>>> Please help to find a better wording, see also below.
>>
>> From a U.S. perspective, the term "post office" in everyday speech is
>> associated with official USPS post offices and, to some extent,
>> USPS-branded approved postal providers. Perhaps it would've been
>> intuitive to reserve amenity=post_office for only these branch
>> locations. But U.S. mappers have been using the tag more broadly
>
> As far as I understand you, the term "post office" in everyday language
> does match different objects (only a subset) than the OSM tag. To me,
> that makes the impression a refined OSM tagging makes sense from US
> perspective, i.e. one that distinguishes between the USPS and others
> just like everday language does. Is that conclusion appropriate? Does
> the proposal seem suitable?
>
>> But if we're creating a new secondary tag, then
>> maybe a more generic term would be helpful.
>
> You're welcome to suggest :)
>
> Greetings, Georg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210228/6ac4901f/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list