Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Voting is not yet open.  Warin asked that the comment period be extended for another week, so I am acceding to his request.  apm-wa On 11/13/2018 7:41 PM, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Thanks! > > ... but I don't see a voting section in >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Thanks! ... but I don't see a voting section in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic Is this because voting is not open yet? Sergio On 2018-11-13 15:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:13 PM Sergio Manzi > wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:13 PM Sergio Manzi wrote: > BTW, can you quickly explain, to a newbie like me, who has voting rights > and what the voting process will be? Can you point me to any documents > about that? > Voting is by editing the voting section of the proposal. Anyone who has

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Me too. I let my "/namespacing/" modification proposal die: this is not the time and the place. BTW, can you quickly explain, to a newbie like me, who has voting rights and what the voting process will be? Can you point me to any documents about that? Regards, Sergio On 2018-11-13 12:54,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Colin, I subscribe to every single word of your post... bravo! Regards, Sergio On 2018-11-12 22:37, Colin Smale wrote: > At moments like this I like to invoke one of my heroes: Albert Einstein. One > famous saying attributed to him is: As simple as possible, but no simpler. > > If you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:37 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That way each vote is on one issue only not the lot bundled together. > And then some people will vote against the initial proposal because it does not adequately address known issues and is therefore incomplete. They

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

What I am suggesting; Stage 1 - Vote on office=diplomatic as a replacement for amenity=embassy Once that is past Stage 2 - vote on diplomatic=embassy/consulate/? with embassy=embassy/high_commission/? consulate=consulate/consulate_general/? ?=?/? Stage 3 .. if you have further things. That

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Warin, may I please remind you that in your message of 31 October you were the mapper who expressed great concern about loss of data? On 11/13/2018 2:37 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2018-11-12 22:00, Warin wrote: > >> On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote: >>> Not contrived at all in these days

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 2018-11-12 22:00, Warin wrote: > On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote: > >> Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason the >> inverse would not work. I'll add it. > > I think there are too many things in the proposal. Keep it simple. Yes the > 'extras' might

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 13/11/18 01:07, Allan Mustard wrote: Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason the inverse would not work. I’ll add it. I think there are too many things in the proposal. Keep it simple. Yes the 'extras' might sound nice but they add complexity and each one is a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Yes, the UK embassies act on behalf of nationals of the British Commonwealth if they have no representation in country.  I'd not tag that, either.  They already know it :-) On 11/12/2018 2:36 PM, Warin wrote: > On 12/11/18 18:31, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Not contrived at all in these days of tight budgets. I see no reason the inverse would not work. I’ll add it. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 12, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> Just for the sake of asking a theoretical question

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 12/11/18 18:31, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Just for the sake of asking a theoretical question that I know would probably never appear in real life :-) Would / could you also use the multi-letter codes as you show eg NATO, WTO, SEATO? & a mixture of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 2018-11-11 21:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Just for the sake of asking a theoretical question that I know would probably > never appear in real life :-) > > Would / could you also use the multi-letter codes as you show eg NATO, WTO, > SEATO? > > & a mixture of them, so the British

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Yes, absolutely.  For example, the Turkmen ambassador in Brussels is accredited to both Belgium and the European Union. It's not hypothetical at all, but rather very much real life. On 11/12/2018 1:51 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 21:42, Allan Mustard

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 21:42, Allan Mustard wrote: > >- target =* where * is >the two-character ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code > for the receiving >(accrediting) country or organization or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Proposed primary (first-level) key in the current version of the proposal is office=diplomatic.  On 11/11/2018 4:56 PM, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Hello Allan, > > sorry, I'm a late comer to the discussion, so there might be something > I've/am missed/missing, but... > > From your description I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Hello Allan, sorry, I'm a late comer to the discussion, so there might be something I've/am missed/missing, but... From your description I understand that "embassy=*", "consulate=*" and "liaison=*" will be new first level keys: wouldn't it be better to make them secondary level keys under the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Here, please take a look at the updated Tagging section of the proposal and see if that solves the issue.  I include a link to the Wikipedia article on ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic#Tagging *Current Proposal:* * establish

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Colin is correct.  I have added target=* to the proposal.  country=* is already there.  If there are multiple target countries (the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, for example, also covers the Maldives in addition to Sri Lanka) would it not be possible to tag as target=LK;MV ?  On 11/11/2018 3:52 PM,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Host might be a nicer word, but in diplo-speak it is possible to have a different host from the entity to which the mission is accredited (think of the various missions to the World Trade Organization in Geneva: target=WTO, host=CH. On 11/11/2018 11:49 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Sun,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 2018-11-11 11:27, Warin wrote: > On 11/11/18 20:05, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2018-11-11 07:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > But wouldn't it be covered by the name eg "Australian Embassy to Russia"? > > We should not rely on free-text fields like "name" to convey information that >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 11/11/18 20:05, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-11-11 07:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: But wouldn't it be covered by the name eg "Australian Embassy to Russia"? We should not rely on free-text fields like "name" to convey information that belongs in a structured form... The text clearly

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 2018-11-11 07:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > But wouldn't it be covered by the name eg "Australian Embassy to Russia"? We should not rely on free-text fields like "name" to convey information that belongs in a structured form...___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 11/11/18 17:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 12:34, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: Just a suggestion. Under the "Additional tags routinely used would include" section, name=* and country=* are listed. I think the target=* tag (for the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 12:34, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Just a suggestion. Under the "Additional tags routinely used would > include" section, name=* and country=* are listed. I think the target=* tag > (for the receiving country) should also be included since it is already > documented in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Good catch, Eugene, thanks.  Especially useful for missions to multilateral organizations (e.g., EU, NATO, UN, WTO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, etc.) On 11/11/2018 7:33 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Just a suggestion. Under the "Additional tags routinely used would > include" section,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Just a suggestion. Under the "Additional tags routinely used would include" section, name=* and country=* are listed. I think the target=* tag (for the receiving country) should also be included since it is already documented in the amenity=embassy page. (I am not sure if "target" is a good term

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Sometimes, you can.  It depends on the type of liaison office.  AIT and TECRO both issue visas.  The State of Virginia office in New Delhi, obviously not. On 11/10/2018 9:02 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > You can not usually get a visa from a liaison office, or can you?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

sent from a phone > On 10. Nov 2018, at 06:23, Allan Mustard wrote: > > I plowed through the comments and have rewritten and moved the > amenity=consulate proposal to office=diplomatic. You may find the > rewritten proposal here: > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:25 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > > Now, unless there is consensus that we need another two weeks of > comment, I intend within the next two days to submit this proposal for a > vote. > Go for it. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Office=visa_application would handle that. Or office=company, company=visa_application. Such offices are not diplomatic facilities, but rather are commercial (they are contractors). Thus they don’t fit under office=diplomatic anyway and don’t fall under the scope of this proposal. That said,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

On 10/11/18 17:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: As far as I'm concerned, it can go to vote! I to am fairly happy. However there is no need to rush. - The spectre of office=visa hangs. If embassies/consulates remained in the 'amenity' key then there would be the opportunity

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

As far as I'm concerned, it can go to vote! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Kind folks, Comments on the proposal tapered off after Eugene's November 4 post, so I plowed through the comments and have rewritten and moved the amenity=consulate proposal to office=diplomatic.  You may find the rewritten proposal here:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

I think I'm going to borrow your text and make it the last version of the proposal, then put it to a vote.  Today marks two weeks, so we can call a vote if everybody's ready.  I go back on the road Tuesday afternoon for a few days so will be off the grid, good time to get started. On 11/4/2018

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 2018-11-01 20:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard > wrote: * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:12 AM Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > >> * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional >> (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use >> embassy, consulate and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional > (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use > embassy, consulate and other as additional (tertiary) tags to specify > further the type

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

I would envision it including the state-level representations plus the various non-diplomatic "liaison offices" and "institutes" (e.g., American Institute in Taiwan) that are pseudo-embassies and in many cases lack both diplomatic status and immunities.  So diplomatic_representation would probably

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

sent from a phone > On 1. Nov 2018, at 17:57, Allan Mustard wrote: > > How about amenity=embassy, amenity=consulate, plus amenity=representation to > capture those facilities that are neither pudding nor frozen, er, sorry, > neither embassies nor consulates? Any heartburn there? Then we

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

How about amenity=embassy, amenity=consulate, plus amenity=representation to capture those facilities that are neither pudding nor frozen, er, sorry, neither embassies nor consulates?  Any heartburn there?  Then we use diplomatic=* as an additional tag (i.e., continue current practice) to specify

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Daniel, many thanks for this tip.  I had not seen this before!  It will be useful. Responses to the e-mail have been posted (with some consolidation to avoid unnecessary duplication) to the discussion page .  

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

W dniu 01.11.2018 o 09:12, Warin pisze: > A problem will be the lack of rendering for some time. Speaking of rendering - it might be useful to know that there is a map service called OpenDiplomaticMap, which is also a quality assurance tool: https://anders.hamburg/osm/diplomatic -- "Excuse

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

OK, I take back what I said. And if Allan, Markus and Martin all think that's the way to go, I'm fine with that. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:46 AM SelfishSeahorse wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original proposal of > > keeping amenity=embassy and adding amenity=consulate. So I believe your > > first summary is inaccurate. > > I do. For me this is most consistent with the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

sent from a phone > On 1. Nov 2018, at 07:20, Johnparis wrote: > > I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original proposal of > keeping amenity=embassy and adding amenity=consulate. So I believe your first > summary is inaccurate. I do. For me this is most consistent with the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 01/11/18 17:20, Johnparis wrote: I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original proposal of keeping amenity=embassy and adding amenity=consulate. So I believe your first summary is inaccurate. Instead what I have seen is suggesting that amenity=diplomatic is possibly a better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original proposal of keeping amenity=embassy and adding amenity=consulate. So I believe your first summary is inaccurate. Instead what I have seen is suggesting that amenity=diplomatic is possibly a better fit than office=diplomatic. So I would

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Dear Colleagues, Eleven days into the RFC, we have three competing lines of thought regarding even a primary tag for diplomatic missions, and similarly little consensus on additional (secondary and tertiary) tags that would preserve and expand information. The three lines of thought are: *

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Am Mi., 31. Okt. 2018 um 02:41 Uhr schrieb Allan Mustard : > Nobody wants to be called "minor" in diplomacy. Wars have been fought > over lesser insults. If that's the only other suggestion, then my proposal > will remain "other" :-o > The head of the OSCE mission here in Ashgabat is a former

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Sounds like you just volunteered to do a session on tagging at the next SOTM and to help me write the wiki articles supporting whatever we end up voting on :-) I hear you on tagging but don’t agree that a current inadequacy of tagging is a reason to torpedo improvement to accuracy and clarity.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 31/10/18 12:33, Allan Mustard wrote: Some responses to Warin: On 10/31/2018 3:45 AM, Warin wrote: Errr. By combining Embassy with High Commission there is a decrease in information. No information is lost. "High Commission" is an embassy by another name, between Commonwealth members. 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 10/31/2018 3:11 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > If the consensus is that "other" sucks as an option I'm certainly > open to other suggestions, but we need something for diplomatic > missions headed by neither an ambassador/charge d'affaires (i.e., > subject to the VCDR) nor a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Some responses to Warin: On 10/31/2018 3:45 AM, Warin wrote: > Errr. > > By combining Embassy with High Commission there is a decrease in > information. > No information is lost.  "High Commission" is an embassy by another name, between Commonwealth members.  The term "high commission" would be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 31/10/18 04:46, Allan Mustard wrote: Not really dropping. More like reorganizing. Errr. By combining Embassy with High Commission there is a decrease in information. As someone who has spent hours puzzling over Maperitive's rendering rules, deciding how to build them so that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Re: “To make this work, projects like osm carto would either have to add a column for this key to their dbs” I don’t think this is a big problem. This year we added “advertising” as a top-level key that is rendered for advertising=column. It does make the code a little more complex, but so does

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Am Di., 30. Okt. 2018 um 18:48 Uhr schrieb Allan Mustard : > Not really dropping. More like reorganizing. As someone who has spent > hours puzzling over Maperitive's rendering rules, deciding how to build > them so that particular categories of POIs will be rendered in specific > ways, I am

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Not really dropping.  More like reorganizing.  As someone who has spent hours puzzling over Maperitive's rendering rules, deciding how to build them so that particular categories of POIs will be rendered in specific ways, I am quite sensitive to the need for consistency and a finite number of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

The problem I see is that, as I understand it, Allan is proposing to drop some existing diplomatic=* values, such as diplomatic=permanent_mission. And the proposed substitute is to rely on the name=* tag. Martin pointed out a problem where something not an embassy has a name like an embassy. But

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 29/10/18 21:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:18, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name here’s an example for a misleading name tag:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

It would not get the diplomatic=* tag so still would not show up in an overpass turbo search based on that tag plus the name.  Same goes for an hotel tagged name=Embassy Suites. On 10/30/2018 3:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Thanks - that makes sense now! > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:42,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

No they haven't. They've called it 'Ständige Vertretung'. It doesn't contain the word 'German' or 'Embassy', plus it's explicitly a restaurant, so what's wrong with it? Steve On 29/10/2018 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Thanks - that makes sense now! On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:42, Steve

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Thanks - that makes sense now! On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 08:42, Steve Doerr wrote: > Thanks, but you still haven't told us what's wrong with it. > They've effectively called the pub / bar "The German Embassy"! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 29/10/2018 22:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. Oct 2018, at 21:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285 Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something in translation?)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 29/10/18 21:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 29. Oct 2018 11:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name Noone proposed to stop using name tag. My intent was Mappers can use the name tag to obtain the diplomatic

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 30/10/18 07:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:26, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: here’s an example for a misleading name tag: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285 Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

sent from a phone On 29. Oct 2018, at 21:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285 > > > Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something in > translation?) it is a pub which is called like the FRG representation in the GDR

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > here’s an example for a misleading name tag: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285 > Sorry, Martin, but what's wrong with it? (or am I missing something in translation?) Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

29. Oct 2018 11:10 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : > > At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name Noone proposed to stop using name tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

sent from a phone > On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name here’s an example for a misleading name tag: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/332554285 Cheers, Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

sent from a phone > On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name > > embassy > high commission > nunciature > consulate > consulate _general > > etc. > > OSm normally sides with the mappers rather than the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

At the moment mappers can simply tag by using the name embassy high commission nunciature consulate consulate _general etc. OSm normally sides with the mappers rather than the renders, keep the mappers job easy and they will continue to add things. Make it hard and they will give up. So I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Here are some rules of thumb: * If it displays a sign reading "embassy", "high commission", "nunciature", or "interests section", it is a safe bet that it should be tagged "embassy". * If the sending side has made loud public pronouncements and published widely that its embassies are now called

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:32, Allan Mustard wrote: > > * The USAID office is part of the American Embassy but is in a separate > office flat in a building across town, so would be a node tagged > diplomatic=embassy, embassy=assistance office. > * The Turkish counterpart, TIFA, does not enjoy

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Please let me clarify.  The three categories [embassy, consulate, other] are based on their status as diplomatic missions as defined by international law, which is how governments look at them, label them, and relate to them.  Within those categories functional differences can and often do exist,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 5:48 AM Allan Mustard wrote: [...] > d) diplomatic=* would include only [embassy, consulate, other], with > "other" covering anomalies without status under the VCDR or VCCR (e.g., > AIT, TECRO, and subnational representations); > > e) further refining of the type of

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

First of all, big thanks to all discussants who have pitched ideas and asked probing questions--I think we are moving toward a more elegant solution than what I originally proposed. As of 28 October 2018, one week into the RFC, here is where I think we are (stay tuned for further developments,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

I'm not philosophically opposed to diplomatic=* as a primary tag.  I am merely concerned about the mechanics of doing that, and how it would affect rendering, etc., since it is currently a secondary tag and would not render if "promoted" to primary tag status, at least until some volunteers who

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

No response to date to my requests.  No approval, no response, just silence, and widespread utilization of MAPS.ME on smartphones. On 10/28/2018 10:07 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 15:02, Allan Mustard > wrote: > > Old news.  I've been

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 15:02, Allan Mustard wrote: > Old news. I've been accused of that for years. But numerous Turkmen > government officials have MAPS.ME on their smartphones, and the mayor of > Ashgabat has a copy of the wall map we produce in his office. > So can we take it that you don't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Old news.  I've been accused of that for years.  But numerous Turkmen government officials have MAPS.ME on their smartphones, and the mayor of Ashgabat has a copy of the wall map we produce in his office. On 10/28/2018 7:24 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 20:00, Eugene

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Embassies and consulates are not open to the public, either. You have to make appointments for visa interviews, notarials, passport applications, business counseling, pretty much any service. The lone exception in Ashgabat is the OSM mapper who drops by to share something with the ambassador

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 20:00, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > I can already see the BuzzFeed headline: "U.S. envoy to Turkmenistan > admits Americans have diplomatic relations with Taiwan". > > BTW, for other people on this thread who are not aware: yes, Allan, the > U.S. ambassador to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 03:12, Paul Allen wrote: > As far as the carto side goes, I saw an old youtube video on the subject > which > seemed to imply that adding anything in any manner could have drastic > effects on rendering time, so I > don't know which approach would be better for that. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 7:50 PM Allan Mustard wrote: >From where I sit (literally!), as a bureaucrat who spends many hours most > days in an office, that tag fits diplomatic functions more closely than any > other tag I've encountered so far > The rest of us are merely speculating based upon

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Le 27. 10. 18 à 19:11, Paul Allen a écrit : > I wouldn't vote against office=diplomatic, I just hope > something better turns up before the vote. I have the same feeling and I see two inconsistencies. private company offices are generally spaces that are not open to the public (you must make an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

I agree.  Keep it to three: [embassy, consulate, other].  If the mapper doesn't know, he can check the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.  The information will typically be there. apm-wa On 10/27/2018 9:20 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 27.10.2018 11:57, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >>

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Paul, et al, FYI new embassy compounds under construction around the world typically include both office space and residences for some of the personnel.  The new Saudi complex in Ashgabat, the Chinese, Belarus and Russian embassies in Ashgabat, and the American complex under construction here all

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Hi, On 27.10.2018 11:57, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Tagging something as office=diplomatic then diplomatic=non-diplomatic > sounds silly and oxymoronic. Why not simply diplomatic=other? Also we > should allow diplomatic=yes if the mapper doesn't know the exact type. > Therefore

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 27 October 2018 16:17:09 BST, Johnparis wrote: >I was waiting for Martin to weigh in on the amenity vs. office >question. > >To me, a consulate falls squarely within the definition of amenity. It >certainly serves "tourists" (including expats/foreigners/etc.). When I >am >visiting a new

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

I was waiting for Martin to weigh in on the amenity vs. office question. To me, a consulate falls squarely within the definition of amenity. It certainly serves "tourists" (including expats/foreigners/etc.). When I am visiting a new country, my country's consulate is one of the most important

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

sent from a phone > On 27. Oct 2018, at 06:50, Allan Mustard wrote: > > So here is where I sense we are 24 hours later, on Day 6: > a) consulates are not embassies; > b) neither embassies nor consulates are amenities; > c) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is a trend

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

26. Oct 2018 21:53 by dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl : > Historically the problem is lack of experience with moving to new, > better defined and more rich schemes in OSM Carto (like public_transport > or healthcare). The excuse was a written rule to "prevent

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:52 AM Allan Mustard wrote: [Good stuff, almost all of which I agree with] If we want to split hairs, we can point out that "embassy" is technically > an incorrect term for any building since an "embassy" consists solely of > people assigned to conduct diplomatic

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Yes, it is silly and oxymoronic, but so are "non-papers" (a paper that is not a paper), something we diplomats use pretty often.  The problem with calling AIT and TECRO embassies has naught to do with my status as a U.S. diplomat.  It is that they are not embassies in terms of the Vienna

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:52 PM Allan Mustard wrote: > If my sense of growing consensus is correct, I suggest that diplomatic=* > would include only [embassy, consulate, non-diplomatic]. > Tagging something as office=diplomatic then diplomatic=non-diplomatic sounds silly and oxymoronic. Why

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

If we want to split hairs, we can point out that "embassy" is technically an incorrect term for any building since an "embassy" consists solely of people assigned to conduct diplomatic relations with a foreign government, both resident and non-resident.  The "chancery"

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 06:32, Daniel Koć wrote: > It matches nicely, indeed, but on the other hand this is probably not an > office: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:diplomatic%3Dambassadors_residence > I'd agree that the residence is probably not an office=. We've agreed that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 26.10.2018 o 22:08, Eugene Alvin Villar pisze: > > > On the other hand. diplomatic offices and services encompass a range that > is much too narrow such that I don't think having diplomatic=* as a primary > key seems appropriate. I would

  1   2   >