[Talk-GB] Mistagging of old telephone boxes

[Craig Wallace]

On 2017-12-22 21:41, Dave F wrote:
> Hi
>
> FYI user Yorvik Prestigitator has been tagging telephone boxes across
> Britain. He assumed some of these are working phones & tagged them as
> such, when they're purely ornamental (the ones in my city are recent
> additions & have flowers growing out of them at the moment).
>
> When asked for his data's source for this widespread edit & he said "old
> photographs". I've asked a couple of times to give further details, but
> has not been forthcoming & has added additional ones since. I've checked
> to two usable 'streetview' websites, but there's no views for the edits
> I checked. I hope he's not using GM. Is there another source I'm not be
> aware of?
It would be good to have some better tags for phoneboxes (which may or 
may not actually contain a working phone). The phonebox is often a 
distinctive landmark, especially the classic red ones, and many are now 
listed buildings.
I see Yorvik Prestigator is adding the tags for covered=booth and 
booth=KX300 etc. Are these tags documented anywhere? It seems like a 
weird use of covered, as that is for things above the object, not 
necessarily surrounding it.

Why not a specific tag for telephone_box or something?
It would also be useful to tag that it is a classic red phone box, even 
if you don't know what exact model it is.

Craig