[Tagging] incubator for the birth of chicks

[Allan Mustard]

Speaking as a former farmer and retired agricultural economist, this is 
a type of farmstead, called in OSM "farmyard".


We don't differentiate between farms that produce seeds for planting 
versus grain for consumption. Nor should we differentiate between farms 
that produce chicks for growing out as broilers or layers, or the farms 
that grow out broilers. By the same token we do not distinguish between 
a cow-calf operation (birth to about 8 months) and a feedlot (8 months 
to slaughter, usually around 14 months). Both are farmsteads, and the 
commodity produced is cattle. All that said, we can always add another 
data point via the commodity= tag.


Thus, I would recommend:

landuse=farmyard
farmyard=poultry
commodity=chicks

cheers,
apm


To:
tag 


Hello,

how to tag the industrial premises used as an incubator for the birth
of chicks?
amenity=animal_breeding animal_breeding=chick ?

the growing of chicks into chickens is done elsewhere

Regards,
Marc
Subject:
[Tagging] incubator for the birth of chicks
From:
Marc_marc 
Date:
3/19/2023, 4:30 PM

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[Allan Mustard]

My understanding of the 3D aspect of building:part is that if you draw a
portion of a building using building:part you have to do the rest of the
building using building:part as well or the whole building will not render
in 3D, since 3D software is programmed to ignore the base building
footprint if building:part is present, is that correct?

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:01 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jan 2019, at 03:42, John Willis  wrote:
> >
> > - map the building as a warehouse and map an attached polygon as the
> roof (which I haven’t done yet).
>
>
> I would do it like this, or maybe map everything as a warehouse and the
> roof as building:part
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Allan Mustard]

To be clear, it is not my proposal and I cannot even ride a motorcycle.

The mapper making the wholesale changes, ti-lo/Rtfm,  should submit a
proposal, period, since it appears the issue involves wholesale change of
existing tags, not introduction of new tags.

It may not be a "requirement" but it is the polite or communally proper
thing to do.  If I did it, he can do it.

cheers,
apm



On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 8:01 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I have been contacted at least twice by user:ti-lo about changing the
> tagging of several motorcycle shops I've added over the years. He is a bit
> of an evangelist for the new scheme yet has always been polite while asking
> to change my tags. Recently, I checked to see if the tags were documented
> in the Wiki and learned that the "new tagging" scheme aligned with his
> recommendations. I like the scheme and have always said, sure, go ahead
> never thinking that the Wiki had been modified by him (as user:Rtfm) to
> push the scheme he favors.
>
> I don't think it's good policy to discourage mappers from coming up with a
> new tagging scheme. However, such wholesale changes should be discussed
> fully here and perhaps elsewhere but, as someone else pointed out, trying
> to get anything approved by the tagging list is a long struggle that often
> ends in stalemate. I have often been frustrated by the endless
> deliberations that occur on this list when even a relatively small change
> in tagging has been suggested.
>
> Consequently, my opinion about what to do is mixed. Certainly, a full
> discussion is warranted before going ahead.
>
> Best,
> Dave
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 5:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/19 06:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> >
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> >> On 5. Jan 2019, at 08:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".
>> >
>> > you can use any tags you like in your mapping, but that doesn’t imply
>> “changing” tags. It is one thing adding motorcycle:* tags, and another
>> removing “old style” tags.
>> > Or changing the value of a “standard key” from something well known to
>> something “new” (not established) (provided the well known value applies
>> according to common understanding).
>>
>> Thanks for reading the words and not adding to there meaning :)
>>
>> I too do not encourage changing current tags to some other tag. Only with
>> depreciated tags would I encourage there replacement with more current tag
>> use.
>>
>> >
>> > And it doesn’t imply changing the tagging recommendations in the wiki
>> unilaterally. You can do this on your user page, but not in the common
>> space.
>> >
>> > I agree with Allan’s proposition and ask him to set up a proposal.
>>
>> Rather than 'set up a proposal' I would ask the contributor (and that is
>> not Allen) to discuss the matter here.
>>
>> Possible problems are that the contributor does not have good English
>> skills and maybe reactant to enter into that problem area combined with the
>> problem of tagging.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Allan Mustard]

Hmmm.  Having recently shepherded a proposal, and one which in the end was 
radically different from my original version due to valuable input from the OSM 
community, I say tell him to make a proposal and live with the results of 
voting or face wholesale reversion of his edits.  

My two manats’ worth.

Cheers,
Allan Mustard
apm-wa

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the DWG has received a complaint about user ti-lo/Rtfm's introduction of
> motorcycle tags.
> 
> Until 03 April, the shop=motorcycle wiki page contained this:
> 
>> The following is a proposal to put this service variety into tags:
>> 
>>sale=yes/brand/used/no/... - sells whole motorcycles
>>rental=yes/brand/no/... - motorcycle rental
>>repair=yes/brand/oldtimer/no/... - repairs / maintains motorcycles
>>safety_inspection=yes/no - inspection of safety/emission regulation 
>> conformance
>>parts=yes/brand/oldtimer/no/... - sells motorcycle parts
>>clothes=yes/brand/no/... - sells motorcycle clothes / equipment
>>scooters=yes/no/only - to distinguish scooter shops, very useful in Asia
>>services=... - other services this shop offers
> 
> Rtfm (which is ti-lo's account on the wiki) then removed any mention of
> these tags and the word "proposal", instead added a table
> 
>> Optional (compare with "Additional keys" in shop=bicycle)
>> keyvaluesdescriptiontaginfo
>> motorcycle:salesyes/no/usedsells motorbikes / used=only second hand 
>> / yes;used=both new and used
>> motorcycle:rentalyes/no/trailermotorbike rental / motorbike trailer 
>> rental (Both: yes;trailer)
>> motorcycle:repairyes/nomotorbike repair
>> motorcycle:partsyes/nosells parts
>> motorcycle:tyresyes/nosells tyres (may also be used in combination 
>> with shop=tyres)
>> motorcycle:clothesyes/nosells clothes
>> motorcycle:type
> 
> Rtfm proceeded to execute an undiscussed mass edit on the OSM database
> which was reverted here:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47664678
> 
> However:
> 
> * The wiki page has never been changed back
> * Rtfm/ti-lo has continued to edit motorcycle shops around the world,
> and whenever he touched one e.g. to change the spelling from "Harley
> Davidson" to "Harley-Davidson", at the same time also replaced *all* the
> old-style tags with his new-style tags again.
> * ti-lo hismelf seems to be by far the most prolific user of these tags.
> 
> What we have here is not really a classical mechanical edit, but a
> one-man crusade to push through their tagging scheme.
> 
> I'm not sure how to best deal with this. Normally we don't want to
> over-emphasize the proposal and tag voting process and we often say "you
> can just use a tag and it'll eventually be used by others too". But that
> doesn't really apply to changing established tags. Even if it is for the
> better - the complaint we have is really not so much about the new
> tagging scheme but about the way in which it was established.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Should we revert the wiki page to the old version and revert all the
> motorcycle:* tags that ti-lo changed from old-style to motorcycle:*?
> 
> Or ask him to run a proper proposal process until $DEADLINE under threat
> of doing the above?
> 
> Or just shrug and let him have his way?
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

I put some examples in the table located here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> It depends on if it is part of a continuous urban settlement or not.
>
> I use “suburb” and “neighborhood” for places that are considered to be
> part of a larger place. Usually these are mainly urban places, where most
> people are involved in services and industry rather than agriculture or
> forestry or fishing, and a significant percentage of worker travel to the
> larger town center for work.
>
> Sometimes a suburb has it’s own government and town council, as is common
> in the USA. In other cases (Eg Shanghai), a municipality includes area of
> farmland and villages that are clearly separate settlements. So I don’t
> think that the government status can be the distinguishing characteristic.
>
> Perhaps you have a particular example in mind?
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:30 PM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
>> By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own
>> council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
>>> town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
>>> of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).
>>>
>>> Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city
>>> can be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a
>>> half-dozen neighborhoods
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined
>>>> in law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type
>>>> of governance structure (for full details please see
>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a
>>>> governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively
>>>> as the municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks
>>>> any sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>>>>
>>>> apm-wa
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
>>>>> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a
>>>>> node at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling 
>>>>> or
>>>>> farm.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
>>>>> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
>>>>> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
>>>>> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its 
>>>>> own
>>>>> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
>>>>> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do
>>>>> not have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia.
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a
>>>>> few families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small
>>>>> place of worship)
>>>>>
>>>>> A village has some services but only for the local community; people
>>>>> do not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms 
>>>>> or
>>>>> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
>>>>> of place of worship.
>>>>>
>>>>> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
>>>>> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
>>>>> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
>>>>>

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

Not according to the wiki.  It seems nodes are the accepted way of
identifying a settlement, municipal or otherwise.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:44, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> >
> > What do you think?
>
>
> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to
> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or
> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with
> boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own
council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct?

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a
> town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist
> of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods).
>
> Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city can
> be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a half-dozen
> neighborhoods
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
>> Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined
>> in law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type
>> of governance structure (for full details please see
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).
>>
>>
>> Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a
>> governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively
>> as the municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks
>> any sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.
>>
>> apm-wa
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
>>> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>>>
>>> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a node
>>> at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or farm.
>>>
>>> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
>>> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
>>> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
>>> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own
>>> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
>>> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>>>
>>> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do
>>> not have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia.
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a
>>> few families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small
>>> place of worship)
>>>
>>> A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
>>> not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
>>> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
>>> of place of worship.
>>>
>>> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
>>> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
>>> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
>>> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
>>> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
>>> visited.
>>>
>>> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
>>> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
>>> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
>>> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
>>> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
>>> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
>>> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
>>> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
>>> global cities however)
>>>
>>> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than
>>> 100), and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
>>> cut-offs vary by region.
>>>
>>> A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
>>> small population if it has the only high school, government office,
>>> supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
>>> whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
>>> do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
>>> people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
>>>

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

Very interesting.  In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined in
law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type of
governance structure (for full details please see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure).


Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a governance
structure (a village council with a chair who serves effectively as the
municipal manager/mayor)?  In my experience a "neighbourhood" lacks any
sort of governance structure aside from (sometimes) Neighborhood Watch.

apm-wa

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Those municipalities are relations of type=boundary and
> boundary=administrative with an appropriate admin_level, no?
>
> These are different from the OSM settlements, which are mapped as a node
> at the center of a city, town, village, hamlet or isolated dwelling or farm.
>
> While the pages suggest certain population ranges for each of these
> settled places, in the past they were defined by available services in
> England. A city had a cathedral or university, a town had a (full-time)
> marketplace, a village had a church, and a hamlet was too small for its own
> church but had more than one family. That’s the historic basis for the OSM
> system, though in modern times the standards are less certain.
>
> I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do not
> have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia. For
> example:
>
> a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a few
> families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small place
> of worship)
>
> A village has some services but only for the local community; people do
> not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or
> hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort
> of place of worship.
>
> A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding
> hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools,
> specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and
> entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns
> always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have
> visited.
>
> A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational
> institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses,
> organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to
> cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for
> business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should
> have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use
> (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and
> luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or
> global cities however)
>
> By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than 100),
> and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population
> cut-offs vary by region.
>
> A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively
> small population if it has the only high school, government office,
> supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the
> whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they
> do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000
> people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements
> over 1000 people in size.
>
> This is how I tag places in eastern Indonesia, where many villages and
> towns are very isolated. Perhaps this is similar in your country?
>
> But in a densely populated region, like Java (where there are 120,000
> million people on one island), even a settlement with 20,000 people might
> just be a conglomeration of farming villages that hardly qualifies as a
> town, and a town could grow to 200,000 residents and still lack any
> characteristics of a city.
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:46 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
>> Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the
>> dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions
>>
>> The nub is that I advocate classifying Turkmenistan's municipalities
>> based on their official status according to the host government (see the
>> wiki article Districts in Turkmenistan).  Another mapper, Aka_Bob,
>> disagrees and insists that there are OSM guidelines based on population (I
>> note that the OSM place=village article says a village ca

[Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

[Allan Mustard]

Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts.  Please see the
dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Turkmenistan#Disputed:_Suggested_Place_Tags_for_Administrative_Subdivisions

The nub is that I advocate classifying Turkmenistan's municipalities based
on their official status according to the host government (see the wiki
article Districts in Turkmenistan).  Another mapper, Aka_Bob, disagrees and
insists that there are OSM guidelines based on population (I note that the
OSM place=village article says a village can have up to 10,000 population,
which in the United States is laughable--that would be a town or a city).
Aka_Bob edited that section of the wiki article unilaterally without first
consulting local mappers.  I have no intention of entering into an edit
war, but rather want to take this out to the community for discussion.

I'd like to hear what people think.  Opening classification of Turkmen
muncipalities to free interpretation rather than a standard official
classification strikes me as a recipe for chaos, particularly since
official population data have not been published for over a decade (the
2012 and 2017 censuses were made secret) but maybe that's just me.  What do
you think?

Best regards and Happy New Year to all!

apm-wa
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

[Allan Mustard]

Motel = MOtor hoTEL

The major difference between a 'hotel" and a "motel" originally was the
configuration of the building with respect to parking.  At a traditionally
designed motel, the cars are parked outside the units, which typically open
to the outdoors, not to a hallway, so that patrons of the motel may come
and go freely to their automobiles.  Length of stay is immaterial.

The first motels appeared on the Lincoln Highway in the 1920s, if memory
serves, and had little carports capable of accommodating a Model T
Ford-sized automobile next to a cabin (yes, the first motels featured
cabins, not rooms in a larger building).

Then along came Motel 6, so called because it charged $6 per night back in
the day (it featured coin-operated TVs and you paid extra for everything
but the bed, bath, and four walls).  Many Motel 6s had hallways, and that
changed the design, but they still catered to transients en route from
Point A to Point B.

Today the main difference seems to be the sign out front.  If a hostelry
calls itself a motel, it is a motel.  If it calls itself a hotel, it is a
hotel.  Local licensing authorities do not differentiate between them and
they are regulated identically, so far as I can tell.  I'd say the
definition should be based on what is written on the sign on the hostelry.
These are my two cents' worth based on 30+ years of travel, including a few
cross-country trips across America as well as extensive on-ground travel in
Mexico, Russia, and central Europe.

Cheers and Merry Christmas to all!
apm-wa


On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 4:33 AM bkil  wrote:

> I've made a major rewording of this tag. Please review and don't hesitate
> to comment or improve if I've mistakenly changed the meaning of the tag:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Atourism%3Dmotel=revision=1755686=1561324
>
> Source: based on Wikipedia and recent mapping experience:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65702446#map=9/47.1412/18.6632
>
> It also looks like some have used the word motel for what should have been
> pensions and guest houses around here, I'll also fix these later.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Building names, historical/original owner?

[Allan Mustard]

That’s good, too.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Jmapb  wrote:
> 
>> On 12/14/2018 11:20 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:36 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>>> What are folks thoughts about these historical-owner building names when 
>>> they aren't well-known? Should they go in a `description=` tag, 
>>> `alt_name=`, or some other tag?
>> 
>> If there is only a single old name and it is different from the current 
>> name, we have the established tag old_name=* as explained here: 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:old_name
>> This wiki page also suggests other formats like old_name:1921-1932=* if the 
>> name is valid in a particular period.
> IMO it's fine to use old_name=* even without name=* -- to record the fact 
> that it used to be known as the Johnson House, but there's no current name in 
> common use. J
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (office=diplomatic)

[Allan Mustard]

Yeah, I saw that, Sergio.  One more puzzle to puzzle over!  If anybody
has any wisdom on this...

On 12/3/2018 4:09 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Great job, Allan!
>
> One more small quirk, thus: in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dembassy the
> deprecation banner says that the reason for the deprecation is
> documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features
> but I don't see anything about amenity=embassy in there...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2018-12-02 23:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 03:48, Allan Mustard > <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I also cannot figure out the template for deprecating
>> amenity=embassy.В 
>>
>>
>> Whatever you did, it's now worked!
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dembassy
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (office=diplomatic)

[Allan Mustard]

Many thanks, Paul.  I'll pick up the cudgel tomorrow and continue with
the grunt work (assuming the wiki software doesn't revert the change :-)

apm-wa

On 12/2/2018 10:57 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:48 PM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
>
> I tried to create a Tag:office=diplomatic page but OSM Wiki
> overrode me
> and renamed it Key:office=diplomatic, which is not correct.  Can
> somebody please take a look at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office%3Ddiplomatic and
> tell me
> what I did wrong,
>
>
> I have no idea what you did wrong.   My guess is you tried to do
> something using the vile user
> interface presented by wikis.  You didn't necessarily did anything
> wrong, you just tried to do
> something.
>  
>
> and maybe fix it for me, change Key: to Tag:?
>
>
> I think I may have achieved that.
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Ddiplomatic
> However, the wiki s/w often thinks it knows better than we do. 
> Sometimes it is right, sometimes
> it is not.  It may sneakily revert my change because it thinks it
> knows better.
>
> FYW, along the top of the page is Read | Edit | Edit Source | View
> History | * | More.  The only thing
> under "More" is "Move."  Which seemed to do the trick.  Until the
> Phantom of the Operating System
> decides otherwise.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (office=diplomatic)

[Allan Mustard]

Dear Colleagues,

Votes are in.  18 aye, 1 nay, 1 abstention.  The proposal passed.  Many
thanks to all who commented, suggested, and voted.  The final product is
not what I proposed but it addresses all concerns raised and I think it
is far better than the status quo ante.

I tried to create a Tag:office=diplomatic page but OSM Wiki overrode me
and renamed it Key:office=diplomatic, which is not correct.  Can
somebody please take a look at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office%3Ddiplomatic and tell me
what I did wrong, and maybe fix it for me, change Key: to Tag:? 
Please?  Can't figure out what's wrong.  It shouldn't be a "Key" page. 

I also cannot figure out the template for deprecating amenity=embassy. 
I've tried several times but keep having to click on "cancel" because
whatever I am doing isn't right.  Any advice would be more than welcome. 

Warm regards to one and all from the sands of the Karakum Desert.

apm-wa



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Allan Mustard]

I don't think OSM should be in the business of writing its own
dictionary and defining terms independently of the rest of society. 
That's a slippery slope.

If a bank is a bank, it's a bank.  If it is part of the banking system
and is regulated as a bank, it's a bank. If we want to differentiate
retail banks offering services to consumers from other types of banks
with an additional tag, that's great--but that doesn't mean banks that
offer different types of services are not banks because the OSM wiki
says so.  If it isn't a bank (a savings and loan, or credit union, or
Aunt Matilda loaning money to her neighbors), it isn't a bank.

apm-wa

On 11/24/2018 7:51 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Nobody is going to dispute that Central Bank can be considered as a
> bank (see name).
>
> But amenity=bank if for places that perform bank-like services for
> public - it excludes some
> banks and includes some companies that technically are not banks.
>
> 24. Nov 2018 15:31 by al...@mustard.net <mailto:al...@mustard.net>:
>
> Here, I just looked up "bank" on 411.com (online directory
> assistance) for Kansas City, Missouri:
>
> https://www.411.com/business/MO/Kansas-city/bank
>
> and guess what, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the Kansas
> City branch of America's central bank, is listed...
>
> 
> https://www.411.com/business/MO/Kansas%20City/federal-reserve-bank-of-kc/b-13fzpij
>
> Try it for Washington, D.C.,
>
> 
> https://www.411.com/business?key=Bank=%E2%9C%93=Washington%2C+DC
>
> and see how many non-retail banks you get under the directory
> assistance rubric of "bank" :-) 
>
> apm-wa
>
> On 11/24/2018 3:08 PM, Warin wrote:
>
> Most people are non-experts in most things. The map should be
> made for most people, so that most people can use it.
>
> And most people would expect something mapped as a bank to be
> available for their use.
> Much like a cafe or a pub. They would not expect it to be only
> for certain groups of institutions.
>
> The intent with amenity=bank is a financial institution
> offering services to the public.
> Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbank
>
> That OSMwiki page suggest using office=financial for other
> 'banks' that do not accept the public.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dfinancial
> Perhaps this OSMwiki office=financial definition could be
> expanded to accept 'central banks'.
>
>
>
> On 24/11/18 18:24, Allan Mustard wrote:
>
> Sounds to me like the OSM wiki article in question was
> written by a non-expert in banking and finance and should
> be corrected/expanded.
> Cheers, apm-wa
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 24, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar
> mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:45 AM Allan Mustard
> mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
> Well, a central bank is a bank, after all, whether
> it is owned by the government or is a "private"
> parastatal organization.Р’  I would tag it as
> amenity=bank since it is a bank.Р’  Not all banks
> offer consumer services, so the fact that an
> individual cannot open an account in a central
> bank doesn't disqualify it.Р’  Individuals cannot
> open accounts in the Bank for International
> Settlements, either, but it is a bank.Р’  A
> central bank is a specialized bank that serves the
> government (controls the monetary system) and the
> commercial banking sector.Р’  That's why it is
> called a "central" bank.
>
> >Р’  It also wouldn't be tagged as a bank, because
> it doesn't have accounts & you can't go in &
> deposit / withdraw cash, or take out a loan.
>
> Maybe you and I cannot, but the commercial banks
> in that country can.Р’  It's a bank.
>
>
> While central banks are certainly banks in and of
> themselves, I think tagging central banks as plain
> amenity=bank *without other qualifying tags* is a
> tricky one, and might constitute as expanding the
> definition of what amenity=bank is on t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Allan Mustard]

Here, I just looked up "bank" on 411.com (online directory assistance)
for Kansas City, Missouri:

https://www.411.com/business/MO/Kansas-city/bank

and guess what, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, the Kansas City
branch of America's central bank, is listed...

https://www.411.com/business/MO/Kansas%20City/federal-reserve-bank-of-kc/b-13fzpij

Try it for Washington, D.C.,

https://www.411.com/business?key=Bank=%E2%9C%93=Washington%2C+DC

and see how many non-retail banks you get under the directory assistance
rubric of "bank" :-) 

apm-wa

On 11/24/2018 3:08 PM, Warin wrote:
> Most people are non-experts in most things. The map should be made for
> most people, so that most people can use it.
>
> And most people would expect something mapped as a bank to be
> available for their use.
> Much like a cafe or a pub. They would not expect it to be only for
> certain groups of institutions.
>
> The intent with amenity=bank is a financial institution offering
> services to the public.
> Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbank
>
> That OSMwiki page suggest using office=financial for other 'banks'
> that do not accept the public.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Dfinancial
> Perhaps this OSMwiki office=financial definition could be expanded to
> accept 'central banks'.
>
>
>
> On 24/11/18 18:24, Allan Mustard wrote:
>> Sounds to me like the OSM wiki article in question was written by a
>> non-expert in banking and finance and should be corrected/expanded.
>> Cheers, apm-wa
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar > <mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:45 AM Allan Mustard >> <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, a central bank is a bank, after all, whether it is owned
>>> by the government or is a "private" parastatal organization.В  I
>>> would tag it as amenity=bank since it is a bank.В  Not all banks
>>> offer consumer services, so the fact that an individual cannot
>>> open an account in a central bank doesn't disqualify it.В 
>>> Individuals cannot open accounts in the Bank for International
>>> Settlements, either, but it is a bank.В  A central bank is a
>>> specialized bank that serves the government (controls the
>>> monetary system) and the commercial banking sector.В  That's why
>>> it is called a "central" bank.
>>>
>>> >В  It also wouldn't be tagged as a bank, because it doesn't
>>> have accounts & you can't go in & deposit / withdraw cash, or
>>> take out a loan.
>>>
>>> Maybe you and I cannot, but the commercial banks in that country
>>> can.В  It's a bank.
>>>
>>>
>>> While central banks are certainly banks in and of themselves, I
>>> think tagging central banks as plain amenity=bank *without other
>>> qualifying tags* is a tricky one, and might constitute as expanding
>>> the definition of what amenity=bank is on the OSM wiki. The OSM wiki
>>> states that an amenity=bank feature is aВ  "financial establishment
>>> where customers can, among other services, deposit and withdraw
>>> money, take loans, make investments and transfer funds". I would
>>> think that the word "customer" in OSM is intended to refer to people
>>> and regular businesses, and this is why such establishments are
>>> under the amenity=* key. Unlike regular banks, central banks usually
>>> only have other banks and their government as their sole customers
>>> and in many countries, central banks act as a regulatory agency for
>>> banks and other financial institutions, set country-wide fiscal
>>> policies like interest rates, and print/mint their countries'
>>> currencies. It therefore makes sense to tag central banks somewhat
>>> differently from other banks.
>>>
>>> I would also like to note that in my country, we do have a central
>>> bank, but we also have two 100%-government owned commercial banks,
>>> established by law, that I would not hesitate to tag as amenity=bank
>>> because they offer financial services to the public at large.
>>>
>>> As for the current proposal, in my country, we currently tag central
>>> bank land as landuse=commercial. It might make sense to switch this
>>> to landuse=governmental (or some other keyword as may be decided by
>>> OSM) if this proposal pushes through.
>>&g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Allan Mustard]

Sounds to me like the OSM wiki article in question was written by a non-expert 
in banking and finance and should be corrected/expanded.
Cheers, apm-wa

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 24, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:45 AM Allan Mustard  wrote:
>> Well, a central bank is a bank, after all, whether it is owned by the 
>> government or is a "private" parastatal organization.  I would tag it as 
>> amenity=bank since it is a bank.  Not all banks offer consumer services, so 
>> the fact that an individual cannot open an account in a central bank doesn't 
>> disqualify it.  Individuals cannot open accounts in the Bank for 
>> International Settlements, either, but it is a bank.  A central bank is a 
>> specialized bank that serves the government (controls the monetary system) 
>> and the commercial banking sector.  That's why it is called a "central" bank.
>> 
>> >  It also wouldn't be tagged as a bank, because it doesn't have accounts & 
>> > you can't go in & deposit / withdraw cash, or take out a loan.
>> 
>> Maybe you and I cannot, but the commercial banks in that country can.  It's 
>> a bank.
>> 
> 
> While central banks are certainly banks in and of themselves, I think tagging 
> central banks as plain amenity=bank *without other qualifying tags* is a 
> tricky one, and might constitute as expanding the definition of what 
> amenity=bank is on the OSM wiki. The OSM wiki states that an amenity=bank 
> feature is a  "financial establishment where customers can, among other 
> services, deposit and withdraw money, take loans, make investments and 
> transfer funds". I would think that the word "customer" in OSM is intended to 
> refer to people and regular businesses, and this is why such establishments 
> are under the amenity=* key. Unlike regular banks, central banks usually only 
> have other banks and their government as their sole customers and in many 
> countries, central banks act as a regulatory agency for banks and other 
> financial institutions, set country-wide fiscal policies like interest rates, 
> and print/mint their countries' currencies. It therefore makes sense to tag 
> central banks somewhat differently from other banks.
> 
> I would also like to note that in my country, we do have a central bank, but 
> we also have two 100%-government owned commercial banks, established by law, 
> that I would not hesitate to tag as amenity=bank because they offer financial 
> services to the public at large.
> 
> As for the current proposal, in my country, we currently tag central bank 
> land as landuse=commercial. It might make sense to switch this to 
> landuse=governmental (or some other keyword as may be decided by OSM) if this 
> proposal pushes through.
> 
> ~Eugene
> 
>  
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Allan Mustard]

Well, a central bank is a bank, after all, whether it is owned by the
government or is a "private" parastatal organization.  I would tag it as
amenity=bank since it is a bank.  Not all banks offer consumer services,
so the fact that an individual cannot open an account in a central bank
doesn't disqualify it.  Individuals cannot open accounts in the Bank for
International Settlements, either, but it is a bank.  A central bank is
a specialized bank that serves the government (controls the monetary
system) and the commercial banking sector.  That's why it is called a
"central" bank.

>  It also wouldn't be tagged as a bank, because it doesn't have
accounts & you can't go in & deposit / withdraw cash, or take out a loan.

Maybe you and I cannot, but the commercial banks in that country can. 
It's a bank.

cheers,
apm

On 11/23/2018 3:20 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 07:04, SelfishSeahorse
> mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> You're right, most central banks are independent from politics, but
> aren't they called governmental institutions nevertheless? Or rather
> state institutions? (I'm not so fluent in English and not an expert on
> state/economy.)
>
>
> Tricky one!
>
> For instance, the Reserve Bank of Australia is wholly owned by the
> Commonwealth of Australia, but it isn't classified as a Government
> Department. It's been tagged as a building=government
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299845167#map=19/-33.86818/151.21169
> В 
>
> How would you tag the land use of an independent central bank?
> Certainly not commercial.
>
>
> I "think" that yes, it probably should / would be? What are the
> options? It's certainly not either retail or industrial. Government -
> not if it's independent, which really only leaves commercial?
>
> It also wouldn't be tagged as a bank, because it doesn't have accounts
> & you can't go in & deposit / withdraw cash, or take out a loan.
>
> So =government if it's government owned; =commercial if it's private;
> not tagged as a bank, but named Reserve / Central Bank of Somewhere.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tracks for moveable large objects

[Allan Mustard]

If it is moveable it is a gantry crane.  A gantry per se can be
immobile, right?

That aside, rails are rails.  Maybe not a rail line in the conventional
sense, but I tagged an (unfortunately disused) children's train in
Ashgabat https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429019713 as a railway even
though it goes around and around, or used to, and has no destination.

light_rail  unused
name 
Parawozik
name:en 
Children's Toy Train
name:ru 
Детская железная дорога
railway 
disused

usage 
tourism


On 11/23/2018 2:28 PM, Michael Patrick wrote:
>
> Some radio telescopes are located on what could be called rail
> lines. ...
> though these lines have to carry more localised weight and have a
> much
> larger track width. For a photo see
> http://www.atnf.csiro.au/resources/imagebank/images/ATCA_in_a_line.jpg
>
> Ideas for suitable tags for these 'rail lines'?
>
>
> 'Rails' certainly, but not 'rail lines' in the conventional sense., in
> that a rail line implies an origin and destination ( in the 'railroad'
> sense ), in this case all are parts of a single device, albeit a very
> large one.
>
> A movable support structure primarily constrained in the horizontal
> plane is known as a *gantry* (system). The constrained path might be
> pavement, rails, sprockets and the movement contact point might be
> wheels, slides, skates, airbags, tracks, pivot, or some such. The path
> might be straight as for cranes or circular in the case of irrigation
> systems, and other geometries that might include switches. They range
> in size from tabletops
>  to almost a
> kilometer
> 
> in some mining and agriculture operations
> .
> Their purpose and action differ from railway / rail line (etc.)  -
> i.e. primarily positioning
>  vs.
> transport.
>
> Michael Patrick
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (office=diplomatic)

[Allan Mustard]

The proposal specifies English—mi scuzi—прошу прощение—Entschuldigen Sie bitte 
:-)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 17, 2018, at 8:35 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:52 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick  
>> wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon? 
> 
> According to the French, it should be EU;OTAN. :)
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (office=diplomatic)

[Allan Mustard]

Semicolon!  Sorry, my eyes are going bad!  Will fix.  Thanks, Graeme!

apm

On 11/17/2018 8:51 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 12:46, Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
>
> Best regards to all, and please do not forget to vote!
>
>
> Done!
>
> One possible (?) typo I noticed though, that may change meanings?
>
> Under target=*
>
> "or target <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:target>=BE;EU:NATO
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:target%3DBE;EU;NATO=edit=1>
>  for
> a mission accredited simultaneously to Belgium, the European Union,
> and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." 
>
> Should EU:NATO be a colon or a semi-colon?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (office=diplomatic)

[Allan Mustard]

Pursuant to a request from another mapper to wait another week after 10
November before calling for a vote, I postponed the start of voting on
the office=diplomatic proposal to today.  Voting is now open.  Please
see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic
for the final version of the proposal, which underwent much modification
from the original--please be sure to acquaint yourself with the proposal
and to review the discussion page.  If you have questions to which you
cannot find answers on the discussion page (which contains the vast bulk
of e-mail discussion) please feel free to e-mail me directly.

I thank the many contributors of ideas, suggestions, and just plain
great intellectual discussion of this proposal as it evolved from a
simple "amenity=consulate" fix to a more comprehensive solution of how
to deal with all manner of diplomatic missions.  It was not only
valuable for me to get all the perspectives you offered (and to tap your
experience as mappers), it was just plain fun, too! 

Best regards to all, and please do not forget to vote!

Allan Mustard
apm-wa


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

[Allan Mustard]

In Turkmenistan I have tagged such signs (though they are official, and
for villages/towns) as tourism=information, information=board or
information=name depending on how much info it contains.  If there is a
better tag, I am all ears.

On 11/16/2018 7:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:35 PM Kevin Kenny  > wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Here in Indonesia it is very common for neighbors to build
> sign over
> the main entrance to their neighborhood, with the name of the
> neighborhood on top and some other info on the two columns
> supporting
> the sign.
>
>
> For all the examples you give, they're not very useful as signs in
> terms of giving directions, and they have a more ceremonial role.
> I wonder if what we're dealing with isn't a public sculpture.
>
>
>  I can only speak of Tulsa and Portland examples as those are the two
> metros where I've seen these most prolifically, though if you look on
> the back of many stop signs or the left side of the street after an
> intersection at the edge of a district (neighborhood), there will be a
> round sign (probably using a blank W10-1) with the district's logo. 
> These signs line the perimeter of the district, making it possible to
> form the administrative boundary of the district.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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
> 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:
>>
>> 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.В  Anyone who
>> has registered to be able to
>> edit the wiki can vote.
>>
>> The wiki page
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting explains
>> how the
>> author of the proposal can set up a vote and can be used to figure
>> out how to vote.В  You edit
>> the wiki.
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 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 point that can lead to someone objecting to that specific
>> thing and leading to enough no votes that it fails.
>
> 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 simplify complex realities too much, you lose valuable detail.
> If it's complex, it's complex. If you want to leave out a level of
> detail, such as being able to distinguish between the different types
> of services provided on behalf of multiple "tenant" countries in a
> diplomatic mission, then so be it, but let's discuss whether it is
> desirable to leave that out, and whether the resultant ambiguity is
> acceptable. Data modelling means constructing an approximation to
> reality, and is all about what details to keep in and what to leave
> out. Once it is left out, it cannot be reconstructed from the rest of
> the data. (If it can, your data model is not properly normalised.)
>
> If OSM is being limited to being suboptimal because of politics and
> the inability to reach consensus, I would rather the system was fixed
> instead of condemning the whole business to eternal mediocrity.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

Even for a government bureaucrat like me it seems a bit wordy. :-)

On 11/12/2018 6:19 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote
>> On 7. Nov 2018, at 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe change the title a little bit: "office of an elected official"?
> maybe this goes too far?
>
> Cheers, Martin 
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 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 Ambassador to Belgium, who is
>>> also the delegate / representative to NATO (if there is such a
>>> thing?), would be
>>> country=GB
>>> target=BE;NATO
>>>  
>> It's possible I guess to have the inverse of that as well, where the
>> embassy of e.g. France also houses the ambassador of e.g. Monaco,
>> both being accredited to the same receiving nation? (contrived example)
>>  
>> If a mission "represents" multiple countries, and the services
>> offered are different, how could that be tagged? Something like the
>> full Embassy of A also housing consular services for B.
>>  
>> Possibly two OSM objects, one for the embassy of A and a separate
>> node for the services on behalf of B?
>>  
> I do know that in the past one diplomatic establishment will act for
> another where the other has no representatives in that country. E.g
> Commonwealth countries would usually try to help one another out. And
> I think Russia also substitutes for some other adjacent countries. The
> services offered varied depending of the countries and place. I'd not
> tag it.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 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 Ambassador to Belgium, who is also the 
>> delegate / representative to NATO (if there is such a thing?), would be
>> country=GB
>> target=BE;NATO
>>  
> It's possible I guess to have the inverse of that as well, where the embassy 
> of e.g. France also houses the ambassador of e.g. Monaco, both being 
> accredited to the same receiving nation? (contrived example)
>  
> If a mission "represents" multiple countries, and the services offered are 
> different, how could that be tagged? Something like the full Embassy of A 
> also housing consular services for B.
>  
> Possibly two OSM objects, one for the embassy of A and a separate node for 
> the services on behalf of B?
>  
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
>   * target
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:target>=* where * is
> thetwo-character ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2>for the
> receiving (accrediting) country or organization or the
> generally accepted English acronym for an international
> organization (e.g., UN, OSCE, NATO, WTO). If a mission is
> accredited to multiple countries or organizations, * will
> constitute a semicolon-delimited list of tags, e.g., target
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:target>=US;CA
> 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:target%3DUS;CA=edit=1>
>  for
> a mission accredited to both the United States and Canada.
>
> Thanks - once again sums things up beautifully - you must be good at
> this sort of stuff! :-)
>
> 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 Ambassador to Belgium, who is also
> the delegate / representative to NATO (if there is such a thing?),
> would be
> country=GB
> target=BE;NATO
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>  
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 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 "diplomatic" /namespace/,
> exactly as you are proposing for "services" (/and maybe also add
> "services"" as a possible value for "diplomatic=*"/) ?
>
> We should then have:
>
>   * diplomatic:embassy
> 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:embassy=edit=1>=*
>  with
> key values of [yes, high_commission, nunciature,
> interests_section, mission, delegation, branch_embassy, residence]
>   * diplomatic:consulate
> 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:consulate=edit=1>=*
>  with
> key values of {yes, consulate_general, consular_agency,
> consular_office, honorary_consul]
>   * diplomatic:liaison
> 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:liaison=edit=1>=*
>  with
> key values of [liaison_office, representative_office, subnational];
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2018-11-11 12:40, Allan Mustard wrote:
>>
>> 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 formally the office
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:office>=diplomatic
>> 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:office%3Ddiplomatic=edit=1>
>>  primary
>> tag/key value combination, with the following additional
>> (secondary and tertiary) tags:
>>   o diplomatic
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diplomatic>=* with
>> key values of [embassy, consulate, liaison]
>>   + embassy
>> 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:embassy=edit=1>=*
>>  with
>> key values of [yes, high_commission, nunciature,
>> interests_section, mission, delegation, branch_embassy,
>> residence]
>>   + consulate
>> 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:consulate=edit=1>=*
>>  with
>> key values of {yes, consulate_general, consular_agency,
>> consular_office, honorary_consul]
>>   + liaison
>> 
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:liaison=edit=1>=*
>>  with
>> key values of [liaison_office, representative_office,
>> subnational];
>>
>>   * establish formally diplomatic:services:*=[yes/no] additional
>> (tertiary) tag with the following options:
>>  o
>>   + diplomatic:services:non-immigrant_visas*=[yes/no]
>>   + diplomatic:services:immigrant_visas=[yes/no]
>>   + diplomatic:services:citizen_services=[yes/no]; and
>>
>>   * deprecate the amenity=embassy tag over a period of time.
>>
>> Additional tags routinely used would include:
>>
>>   * country <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:country>=* where
>> * is thetwo-character ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2>for the sending
>> country or organization or the generally accepted English acronym
>> for an international organization (e.g., UN, OSCE);
>>   * name <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name>=* where * is
>> the name of the mission;
>>   * target <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:target>=* where *
>> is thetwo-character ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2>for the
>> receiving (accrediting) country or organization or the generally
>> accepted English acronym for an international organization (e.g.,
>> UN, OSCE, NATO, WTO). If a mission is accredited to multiple
>> countries or organizations, * will constitute a
>> semicolon-delimited list of tags, e.g., target
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:target>=US;

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 formally the office
=diplomatic


 primary
tag/key value combination, with the following additional (secondary
and tertiary) tags:
  o diplomatic
=* with key
values of [embassy, consulate, liaison]
  + embassy

=*
 with
key values of [yes, high_commission, nunciature,
interests_section, mission, delegation, branch_embassy,
residence]
  + consulate

=*
 with
key values of {yes, consulate_general, consular_agency,
consular_office, honorary_consul]
  + liaison

=*
 with
key values of [liaison_office, representative_office,
subnational];

  * establish formally diplomatic:services:*=[yes/no] additional
(tertiary) tag with the following options:
  o
  + diplomatic:services:non-immigrant_visas*=[yes/no]
  + diplomatic:services:immigrant_visas=[yes/no]
  + diplomatic:services:citizen_services=[yes/no]; and

  * deprecate the amenity=embassy tag over a period of time.

Additional tags routinely used would include:

  * country =* where *
is thetwo-character ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code
for the sending
country or organization or the generally accepted English acronym
for an international organization (e.g., UN, OSCE);
  * name =* where * is the
name of the mission;
  * target =* where * is
thetwo-character ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code
for the receiving
(accrediting) country or organization or the generally accepted
English acronym for an international organization (e.g., UN, OSCE,
NATO, WTO). If a mission is accredited to multiple countries or
organizations, * will constitute a semicolon-delimited list of tags,
e.g., target =US;CA


 for
a mission accredited to both the United States and Canada.

and of course the address and other contact information.


On 11/11/2018 3:52 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> 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 belongs in a structured form...
>>
>> The text clearly identifies the object as;
>> an Embassy
>> The 'from' country as Australia
>> the 'to' country ... as Russia ... though this may also include other
>> countries too ..and would be indicated by an enclosure by that county.
>
> You miss the point... The fact that the words "Australian Embassy"
> and/or "to Russia" occur in the "name" tag is not enough for an
> automated processor to unambiguously understand that the sending
> nation is the Commonwealth of Australia and the receiving nation is
> the Russian Federation. All these words can be written in any language
> of the world. Hence the need for the "from," "to" and "function"
> concepts to be modelled with a curated list of values - there are only
> so many countries and international organisations (in this sense) in
> the world, and those lists are pretty static.
>
> Enclosure won't work for missions to international organisations or
> the Vatican either. There are (IIRC) also arrangements between
> countries such that the embassy of A in country B also represents
> country C under certain circumstances. This also doesn't fit nicely
> with the "from"/"to" model. On wikipedia they are called "De facto
> embassies":
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_embassy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> 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 belongs in a structured form...
>>
>> The text clearly identifies the object as;
>> an Embassy
>> The 'from' country as Australia
>> the 'to' country ... as Russia ... though this may also include other
>> countries too ..and would be indicated by an enclosure by that county.
>
> You miss the point... The fact that the words "Australian Embassy"
> and/or "to Russia" occur in the "name" tag is not enough for an
> automated processor to unambiguously understand that the sending
> nation is the Commonwealth of Australia and the receiving nation is
> the Russian Federation. All these words can be written in any language
> of the world. Hence the need for the "from," "to" and "function"
> concepts to be modelled with a curated list of values - there are only
> so many countries and international organisations (in this sense) in
> the world, and those lists are pretty static.
>
> Enclosure won't work for missions to international organisations or
> the Vatican either. There are (IIRC) also arrangements between
> countries such that the embassy of A in country B also represents
> country C under certain circumstances. This also doesn't fit nicely
> with the "from"/"to" model. On wikipedia they are called "De facto
> embassies":
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_embassy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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, 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 the amenity=embassy page. (I am
> not sure if "target" is a good term for this tag but it is already
> in use so it might be okay to just adopt it as is.)
>
>
> Would "host" be a nicer word?
>
> But wouldn't it be covered by the name eg "Australian Embassy to Russia"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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, 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 for this tag but it is already in use so it
> might be okay to just adopt it as is.)
>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:25 PM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
> 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:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic
>
> 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.  If you object to this and believe we need another two weeks of
> comments since amenity=consulate was moved to office=diplomatic,
> please
> say so!  I'm happy either way, and thank you all for your interest,
> ideas, and comments.
>
> Very best regards to all,
> apm-wa
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

[Allan Mustard]

John and Warin are correct.  These are not government offices.  They are
either contractors (private firms with a government contract) or
lawyers/paralegals offering visa application assistance.

When I was posted to Istanbul three decades ago, before computers took
over, some enterprising fellows with typewriters set up folding tables
and chairs on the sidewalk across the street from the American Consulate
General in Tepebashi.  For a fee they would type up visa applications in
English for Turks who spoke no English and had no access to a
typewriter.  They were certainly not U.S. government employees but they
provided visa application services.  A photo studio around the corner
specialized in visa photos that met U.S. requirements.  The offices you
want to tag are rather similar in terms of the services offered and
rendered.  They just have real offices, digital cameras, dactylographic
scanners, and desktop computers connected to the Internet these days.

On 11/8/2018 5:05 AM, John Willis wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1) this is a commercial firm - not a government
>> authority/branch/department/etc
>> 2) it 'assist' people to obtain a visa
>> 3) it is not at an airport/seaport/boarder
>> 4) the visa is obtained before travel commences.
>> 5) it is not within the country where the visa is used
> if they don’t issue visas, they are immigration or travel
> paralegals/lawyers. this sounds like people assisting tourists. An
> office assisting people trying to get *residence* in a country is
> certainly an immigration lawyer.  
>
> This does sound like something completely different than the
> amenity=immigration I am thinking of. 
>
> I am unsure of a tag - but simply office=visa should be out.
> office=travel assistance or visa assistance or something. 
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

[Allan Mustard]

This is a contractor, so it is not a government office.  The U.S.
government does this also in high-volume consular districts. 
Application is made through a contractor, though the interview takes
place in the consulate.  Office=visa_application would be more accurate,
since visa adjudication still takes place in the consulate.


On 11/8/2018 12:37 PM, Johnparis wrote:
> I tagged one of these office=visa the other day.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4374770543
>
> The offices I'm thinking of are private companies that have government
> contracts to provide services that the government itself would
> normally provide. In many cases they are indistinguishable from a
> government office, so the question of verifiability enters my mind.
>
> For instance, the UK visa office in Paris has big signs outside and
> inside reading "Welcome to Great Britain". I'm frankly not sure if the
> space is rented by the UK or by TLS Contact, which holds the contract.
>
> https://corp.tlscontact.com
>
> Their staff members gather the information for your application,
> including fingerprints, photos, etc., as well as your passport. They
> then seal this in a clear plastic container. After it is sealed, you
> cannot add or remove anything. The fee is set by the UK and paid to
> TLS Contact.
>
> The dossier then goes to London, where a decision is made on your visa
> and the entire dossier is returned to Paris. You pick it up next door
> to the original office from someone behind bulletproof glass. (You
> don't learn the nature of the decision till you look at your
> passport.) This is the only way to get a UK visa in Paris. If you go
> to the UK Embassy or Consulate, they will direct you to the visa office.
>
> Is this an "office=government"? It certainly is quasi-governmental. Do
> they provide visa services? Surely yes, in my mind. In fact, they are
> the only place in Paris that provide visa services for the UK. If you
> want to get any kind of visa -- long term (expat), tourist, transit --
> that's where you go.
>
> So (agreeing with John Willis) I'd say office=visa for these.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 6:16 AM John Willis  > wrote:
>
> Is the office full of people who you pay to help you apply? Or are
> they contracted to be the front-otfice of the agency (acceptance &
> distribution)? В 
>
> It seems to be the latter.В 
>
> Think of taxes.В 
>
> The office where you submit taxes, and an office where a
> professional helps you prepare the forms are two different places.В 
>
> Office=tax_preparation and office=tax are different.В 
>
>
> If this is some office (public or private) with an official
> mandate to accept applications and distribute visas (whether
> approved onsite immidately or approved elsewhere and mailed to the
> office for distribution), that does sound like office=visa.В 
>
> If it is some private business who you pay to help you prepare the
> form, and you mail it to the government and get your visa
> directly, it sounds like office=visa_preperation or
> office=immigration_lawyer.В 
>
> I am unfamiliar with the situation you described - so please
> choose the best tag that suits your needs.В 
>
> Javbw
>
> On Nov 8, 2018, at 11:37 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar  > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:29 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
 1) this is a commercial firm - not a government
 authority/branch/department/etc
 2) it 'assist' people to obtain a visa
 3) it is not at an airport/seaport/boarder
 4) the visa is obtained before travel commences.
>>
>> It is an office you go to. You present documents, they ask
>> questions, you answer, you pay a fee,
>> the office fills out forms using that information provided
>> (and they then send it off to an embassy/consulate)
>> and then some time later you get a visa back from the office
>> (but the visa itself is actually from the embassy/consulate).
>>
>> In the above situation, what is wrong with office=visa ? You
>> apply to the office, they (usually) get you a visa.
>>
>>
>> Here, the Japanese consulate never accepts direct visa
>> application and instructs people to only submit visa applications
>> through accredited travel agencies.
>>
>> On the other hand, many European consulates here contract a
>> 3rd-party visa processing company such as the aforementioned VFS
>> Global to handle all visa applications. These companies even have
>> equipment to collect biometric data such as photographs and
>> fingerprints that will be forwarded to the consulates together
>> with the visa applications.
>>
>>  

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

[Allan Mustard]

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?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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, if you want another week, that’s ok. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 10, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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 of tagging inside the embassies/consulates with office=visa ..
> 
> An office within an office poses problems.
> 
> Still thinking.
> 
> Another week?
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic

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.  If you object to this and believe we need another two weeks of
comments since amenity=consulate was moved to office=diplomatic, please
say so!  I'm happy either way, and thank you all for your interest,
ideas, and comments.

Very best regards to all,
apm-wa

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Government Archives

[Allan Mustard]

Most of what government consists of services.


On 11/10/2018 5:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 8. Nov 2018, at 02:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> An archive is a place that stores old information.
>> Humm .. is giving me access to that information a service?
>
> both, storing historic information and providing access to it, could be seen 
> as services.
>
> Cheers, Martin 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

I like constituency_office.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 4:44 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think I have firmed up on
> 
> office=government
> 
> with either
> 
> government=constituency_office
> or
> government=politicians_office
> 
> I'll start a proposal page .. I'd like a vote on which one, or if there are 
> any other ideas for a government= something else.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Government Archives

[Allan Mustard]

An archive is a special government office. Not a library and not a museum.

I’ve used the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and in College Park, 
Maryland.  Government=archive is most accurate.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just look at the key government the first thing to strike me was archive, the 
> key is meant to be used with office.
> 
> I don't think of government archives as offices... so what is in the data 
> base?
> 
> Well for Kew, UK
> building=government with amenity=public_building
> 
> There are quite a few archives with public building;
> Dublin, Ireland
> Engu, Nigeria
> New York, USA
> 
> 
> Some are just buildings;
> California, USA
> Normandy, France
> Cairo, Egypt
> Rarotonga, Cook Islands
> Abu Dhabi, UAE
> 
> 
> Some are Libraries;
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Adelphi, USA
> 
> 
> Some are museums;
> Tokyo, Japan
> Kabul, Afghanistan
> 
> Some are government offices;
> Zomba, Malawi
> Libreville, Gabon
> Gaborone, Botswana
> Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
> Delhi, India
> Bangkok, Thailand
> 
> 
> Would be nice to have some consistency?
> Usually at least one of these per country, some times several depending on 
> the size of the country.
> I found the above by searching for 'national archives'.
> 
> I think Kew has it best;
>  building=government with amenity=public_building
> 
> Humm that does not cover where there is one office you go to that is part of 
> a larger building having other offices.. do these exist?
> And if so .. are they really an office ... or more like a library or a 
> museum? I think a library, they are documents, very few 'artefacts'.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> ---
> There will be some that have 'off site storage'. These will be buildings, 
> perhaps best described as warehouses?
> So building=warehouse, access=private could be best?
> I think that is fairly clear.
> 
> ===
> PS It seems that as I hunt down one problem I come across several more 
> annoying ones ..
> though they decrease in numbers in the data base. I think I should buy some 
> blinkers and stop seeing these things!!!
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

[Allan Mustard]

Migration services issue all visas in many countries, including tourist visas. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> There is no OSMwiki on what government=migration is about. 
> If you simply use the common definition of  'migration' then tourist do not 
> fit. 
> migration is the movement by people from one place to another with the 
> intentions of settling
> 
> So a place that assist visas for tourist and business people would not 'fit'.
> 
> So I'd say .. office=government, government=migration does not handle this. 
> Particularly when the office is a commercial firm, and I think has no 
> government funding. 
> 
> 
>> On 06/11/18 14:11, Allan Mustard wrote:
>> The office=government, government=migration tags already handle   this, 
>> no?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Nov 6, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Lots of people apply for tourist visas. They are not immigrants, so 
>>> immigration does not fit all. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't know if that particular office only does immigration visas, tourist 
>>> visas or does any type of visa. 
>>> I would prefer a tag suitable for an office that could do any type of visa, 
>>> rather than having to find out which particular thing they do. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 06/11/18 12:37, John Willis wrote:
>>>> Amenity=immigration 
>>>> 
>>>> They handle visas and passports and other paperwork needs of legal 
>>>> residents. 
>>>> 
>>>> This is not something for guests/tourists, but people (like me) who need 
>>>> to handle paperwork to continue to live in the country. 
>>>> 
>>>> It is the inverse of an embassy. 
>>>> 
>>>> Javbw
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 3, 2018, at 12:24 PM, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Definitely not an embassy, and not a consulate, either!  More like a 
>>>>> specialized travel agency that focuses only on visa applications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 11/3/2018 6:22 AM, Warin wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Node: Visalink Germany (4362535595) is tagged as an embassy. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is a commercial firm that arranges applications to the German 
>>>>>> Embassy/Consulate for a visa, see 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.visa-germany.co.za/ 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think tags could be office=visa, country=DE, 
>>>>>> website=https://www.visa-germany.co.za/ 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> but not amenity=embassy, diplomatic=visa ... 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are some 13 with the tag diplomatic=visa that may fall under this 
>>>>>> same cloud. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ___ 
>>>>>> Tagging mailing list 
>>>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

[Allan Mustard]

The office=government, government=migration tags already handle this, no?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 6, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Lots of people apply for tourist visas. They are not immigrants, so 
> immigration does not fit all. 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that particular office only does immigration visas, tourist 
> visas or does any type of visa. 
> I would prefer a tag suitable for an office that could do any type of visa, 
> rather than having to find out which particular thing they do. 
> 
> 
>> On 06/11/18 12:37, John Willis wrote:
>> Amenity=immigration 
>> 
>> They handle visas and passports and other paperwork needs of legal 
>> residents. 
>> 
>> This is not something for guests/tourists, but people (like me) who need to 
>> handle paperwork to continue to live in the country. 
>> 
>> It is the inverse of an embassy. 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
>> On Nov 3, 2018, at 12:24 PM, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>> 
>>> Definitely not an embassy, and not a consulate, either!  More like a 
>>> specialized travel agency that focuses only on visa applications.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 11/3/2018 6:22 AM, Warin wrote:
>>>> Hi, 
>>>> 
>>>> Node: Visalink Germany (4362535595) is tagged as an embassy. 
>>>> 
>>>> It is a commercial firm that arranges applications to the German 
>>>> Embassy/Consulate for a visa, see 
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.visa-germany.co.za/ 
>>>> 
>>>> I think tags could be office=visa, country=DE, 
>>>> website=https://www.visa-germany.co.za/ 
>>>> 
>>>> but not amenity=embassy, diplomatic=visa ... 
>>>> 
>>>> There are some 13 with the tag diplomatic=visa that may fall under this 
>>>> same cloud. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ___ 
>>>> Tagging mailing list 
>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 5:09 PM, egil wrote:
> On 2018-11-01 20:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard > <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> 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 of diplomatic or
>> non-diplomatic mission as needed.
>>
>>
>> This is my preferred option for the following reasons:
>> 1. It reuses the existing office=* primary key, which is already in
>> use (for example, by the main OSM tile layer), as opposed to
>> introducing diplomatic=* as a primary key. Furthermore, I am in favor
>> of not having too many top-level primary keys unless they make a lot
>> of sense (like healthcare=* which is a really broad category, so it
>> makes sense to break this off as a primary key).
>> 2. It does not clutter the overused amenity=* key and allows
>> renderers and users to treat diplomatic and quasi-diplomatic objects
>> in the same way and in a simpler way as opposed to tagging
>> amenity=[embassy, consulate, ].
>> 3. The three values for the secondary tag diplomatic=[embassy,
>> consulate, other] plus adding further details to [embassy, consulate,
>> other]=* makes it easy for mappers to add the level of detail they
>> are comfortable with. If a mapper is unsure what the object is, they
>> can just tag it as office=diplomatic. Then other slightly more
>> knowledgeable mappers can specify diplomatic=*, which seems enough
>> for most casual map users. Then other really knowledgeable mappers
>> can further add [embassy, consulate, other]=* for even more detail
>> and more specialized mapping applications.
>
> +1В 
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

Exactly right.  Government has a legal monopoly on coercion, ranging
from the death penalty to collection of taxes and enforcement of the
barking dog ordinance in Fairfax County, Virginia.  Contractors do a lot
of government work (in the United States, contractors outnumber
direct-hire government employees by a ratio of 2.5:1) but their firms
are or should be tagged office=company while the government offices
where they may perform their duties should be tagged office=government.

I supervised a computer shop for two years.  One-third of my
subordinates were direct-hire government employees.  Two-thirds worked
for a private company with a government contract.  They shared offices
and were virtually interchangeable.  The corporate headquarters was
separate, and in my mind would have been tagged office=company.  My
government office building (the South Agriculture Building, largest
government office building in the District of Columbia at the time)
would have been tagged office=ministry since USDA is a Cabinet
department=ministry.

The bus company in Ashgabat is state-owned.  I have tagged its depot as
a bus depot, not as a government office.  Function to me also plays a role.

apm


On 11/4/2018 8:42 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The activity of a prison is on behalf of a government, pursuant to a
> statutory duty of the government to administer justice. That its
> operation is outsourced to a private company doesn't change that fact.
> You can't just start your own prison - it is a state monopoly.
>
> Public transport may be a state monopoly, but sometimes it isn't. In
> the middle you have state regulation, which is the status in much of
> the UK. Anyone can start a bus company, but you need to register the
> route at least. (I think it might be a bit more complicated than
> that...) Providing free transport, well, I suppose anyone can make it
> free if they want, but the money has to come from somewhere...
>
>
> On 2018-11-04 15:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 4. Nov 2018, at 10:19, Allan Mustard > <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the
>>> Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates
>>> no revenue of its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the
>>> U.S. Congress, yes, it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat
>>> said, "Follow the money!"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  
>> I find this difficult, because it implies we define what is original
>> government duty and what is not. Providing beer is apparently not a
>> government job (any more?), providing healthcare might be (?), what
>> about transportation? Is free public transportation a government
>> duty? They surely wouldn't generate (at least direct) profits, and if
>> the service isn't free it could still be financed by the government
>> and not be profitable. Similarly the providing of energy, water, the
>> treatment of waste. Europeans tend to see prisons as government
>> sites, in the US prisons are often private.
>>  
>> Ciao, Martin 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

The Commodity Credit Corporation is the U.S. equivalent of a British
"crown corporation".  It has no staff of its own, a board of directors
that consists of the senior political appointees of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and authority to disburse funds to farmers eligible for
various government programs.  It has many statutory duties and
authorities to provide credit and subsidies, dating back to legislation
first passed in the Great Depression.  Programs are implemented by USDA
(i.e., government) employees under these authorities.  It is about as
far from a commercial enterprise as one can imagine--not even
"pseudo-commercial"!  In WTO terms, it is the U.S. government's
"national paying agency" for agriculture and so by international treaty
is considered a government agency, even though it is incorporated in
Delaware as a corporation, has a board of directors, and so on.  If the
CCC had an office, it would be tagged office=government, but since CCC
only exists on paper, we mappers don't really have to worry about it :-)

On 11/4/2018 3:52 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The answer will depend on whether we are talking about landuse,
> building, office or amenity.
>
> Waste disposal is (in Europe) usually a statutory task, performed by a
> commercial company on behalf of some government. If it is open to the
> public, then the "amenity" provided is waste disposal / recycling. The
> landuse is probably something like "waste disposal" or "industrial",
> similar to how landfill sites might be tagged. The "office" belongs to
> the commercial company, so that is not governmental.
>
> Other areas where this (outsourcing of statutory duties) is
> commonplace (that I know of) include public transport, administration
> of visa applications, healthcare provision, assessment of benefits
> claims, and operation of highways/infrastructure.
>
> Government-owned companies like a brewery are IMHO nothing to do with
> the execution of statutory tasks and are therefore not governmental in
> any way, shape or form.
>
> In the example of the Credit Corporation, does some government
> organisation have a statutory duty to provide credit? Or does it come
> under something more general like "protecting the poor"? Would the
> government be "failing in its statutory duty" if thie company
> disappeared? Otherwise it sounds like an optional, pseudo-commercial
> venture which in this case happens to be bankrolled by the government.
>
>  
>
>
> On 2018-11-04 11:13, Warin wrote:
>
>> Where do you draw the line?
>> If a 'government company' has 50% of its income from a government
>> allocation and the rest from elsewhere (e.g. contracts with private
>> companies/individuals) is it 'government' or not?
>>
>>  On 04/11/18 20:19, Allan Mustard wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers,
>>> such as the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is
>>> government owned, I'd say no.  It should be tagged as a brewery. 
>>> Same logic would apply to Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's
>>> second-largest revenue earner as an arms exporter.  Petronas, the
>>> Malaysian government gas and oil company, should be tagged as a gas
>>> and oil company.  Same for Pemex, Petroleo Mexicano, as well as the
>>> grocery stores the Bangladeshi army operates.
>>>
>>> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the
>>> Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates
>>> no revenue of its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the
>>> U.S. Congress, yes, it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat
>>> said, "Follow the money!"
>>>
>>> apm-wa
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>> sent from a phone
>>>>
>>>>> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
>>>>> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the 
>>>>> filthy lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used 
>>>>> by someone drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, 
>>>>> and judges do, or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government 
>>>>> office.
>>>> what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Martin 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers,
such as the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is government
owned, I'd say no.  It should be tagged as a brewery.  Same logic would
apply to Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's second-largest revenue
earner as an arms exporter.  Petronas, the Malaysian government gas and
oil company, should be tagged as a gas and oil company.  Same for Pemex,
Petroleo Mexicano, as well as the grocery stores the Bangladeshi army
operates.

If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity
Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of
its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes,
it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!"

apm-wa


On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>
>> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
>> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the filthy 
>> lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used by someone 
>> drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, and judges do, 
>> or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.
>
> what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?
>
> Cheers, Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays
the rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the
filthy lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used
by someone drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators,
and judges do, or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.

By the way the UK has no monopoly on overlap between executive and
legislative branches.  Since we Yanks adopted a Constitution in 1789
that makes the Vice President also the President of the Senate, our VP
is technically a member of the legislative branch, and his office budget
is so appropriated. 

Cheers,
apm-wa


On 11/4/2018 2:04 AM, Warin wrote:
> On 04/11/18 01:41, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 3:29 AM Allan Mustard > <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm.  Reaching back to my bachelor's degree in political
>> science, Parliament is also a government body, the legislative
>> branch of the government, so even a member of the opposition is
>> part of "government" in its broadest sense.  I would tag it
>> office=government, government=parliamentarian or something
>> similar.  Executive, legislative, judicial are all "government".
>>
>> There's a can of annelids here, just waiting to be opened.
>>
>> Over here in the UK, I have an MP (Member of Parliament) representing
>> me in the UK national
>> government.  There's also the House of Lords (upper chamber), some
>> members of which might
>> have unofficial offices outside of parliament buildings where they
>> can be contacted, but a quick
>> search shows no evidence of such.  Since I live in Wales, I also have
>> an AM (Assembly Member)
>> of the National Assembly of Wales.  And, for a few more months, I
>> have an MEP (Member of the
>> European Parliament).  Scotland and Northern Ireland have devolved
>> governments like Wales
>> (but different names for their assemblies and members) but England
>> does not (don't get me
>> started on the West Lothian question).
>>
>> Other member countries of the European Union will have MEPs in
>> addition to representatives of
>> their own national governments and some may have (like the UK)
>> devolved assemblies in
>> addition.  The US has state and federal government.  Oh, and don't
>> forget that technically, the US
>> has three branches of government so we have to decide if we absorb
>> the judiciary into this
>> (does our definition of government differ from that of the US
>> Constitution).
>>
>> It's going to take some careful thought, and many postings here, to
>> come up with a scheme
>> with sensible terminology that works for all those situations. 
>
>
> And those examples are only the ones 'we' are aware of. I'd like some
> thoughts from elsewhere.
>
>
> To me these are all 'politicians' or at least serve a political role
> when acting (I hope) on our behalf to represent 'us'.
> Don't think every situation would be happy with 'parliamentarians'.
>
> I am not going to try and distinguish between the various levels -
> upper and lower houses, federal, state, local, unions etc...
> That could go in the description, far too many variables around the
> world for a single system I think.
> Lets get the first level of tagging done before contemplating a more
> complex area?
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

He is still a government official, is drawing a government salary, and
the office rent is paid for out of the government budget.  It isn't his
personal office for which he is paying out of his own pocket. 

Political parties don't pay for office expenses of members of Parliament
or other legislatures.  "Politician" would be more appropriate for the
campaign office of candidate who has not yet been elected, but they are
temporary and thus not mappable under OSM guidelines.


On 11/4/2018 6:33 AM, Warin wrote:
> On 04/11/18 11:17, Allan Mustard wrote:
>>
>> Top-level tag IMHO would be office=government, then additional tag
>> would be government=legislature.
>>
>> The three branches of government are the executive, the legislative,
>> and the judicial branches.
>>
>
> Errr...
>
>  this is not to map the executive, the legislative, or the judicial
> branches! Probably why I thought office=politician would be better
> than office=government.
>
> This is to map the personal usually local office of some usually
> elected representative .. so locals can communicate to them and they
> can communicate to locals (who usually elect them). It is not about
> the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches' but about a
> politician trying to maintain some connection to the people that
> usually elect them .. so they might get re-elected.
>
> Have I put enough 'usually' in there to keep the edge cases happy?
>
>
> An example?
> Tony Abbott ex PM, http://tonyabbott.com.au/ Has an office at Level 2,
> 17 Sydney Road, Manly, NSW 2095 Australia. It is not the office of the
> Liberal Party, nor an office of what ever role he might be playing in
> parliament. It is an office of Tony Abbott the elected representative
> in this area.
>
>
>
>>
>> On 11/4/2018 5:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 07:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's going to take some careful thought, and many postings
>>>> here, to come up with a scheme
>>>> with sensible terminology that works for all those situations. 
>>> To me these are all 'politicians' or at least serve a political
>>> role when acting (I hope) on our behalf to represent 'us'.
>>> Don't think every situation would be happy with 'parliamentarians'.
>>>
>>> I am not going to try and distinguish between the various levels
>>> - upper and lower houses, federal, state, local, unions etc...
>>> That could go in the description, far too many variables around
>>> the world for a single system I think.
>>> Lets get the first level of tagging done before contemplating a
>>> more complex area?
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I agree with you!
>>>
>>> I would think either of the 2 basic we mentioned should fit
>>> office=government or office=politician 
>>>
>>> Question though (more for someone in Europe) - is a "Member of the
>>> European Parliament" elected, or just appointed by their home
>>> country? Are they a "politician" as such?
>>>
>>> Is there another overall term for elected people? (& yes, I can
>>> think of quite a few terms for them, but I don't think we should be
>>> marking any of them on the map! :-))
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

Top-level tag IMHO would be office=government, then additional tag would
be government=legislature.

The three branches of government are the executive, the legislative, and
the judicial branches.


On 11/4/2018 5:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 07:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> It's going to take some careful thought, and many postings here,
>> to come up with a scheme
>> with sensible terminology that works for all those situations. 
> To me these are all 'politicians' or at least serve a political
> role when acting (I hope) on our behalf to represent 'us'.
> Don't think every situation would be happy with 'parliamentarians'.
>
> I am not going to try and distinguish between the various levels -
> upper and lower houses, federal, state, local, unions etc...
> That could go in the description, far too many variables around
> the world for a single system I think.
> Lets get the first level of tagging done before contemplating a
> more complex area?
>
>
> No, I agree with you!
>
> I would think either of the 2 basic we mentioned should fit
> office=government or office=politician 
>
> Question though (more for someone in Europe) - is a "Member of the
> European Parliament" elected, or just appointed by their home country?
> Are they a "politician" as such?
>
> Is there another overall term for elected people? (& yes, I can think
> of quite a few terms for them, but I don't think we should be marking
> any of them on the map! :-))
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

Hmmm.  Reaching back to my bachelor's degree in political science,
Parliament is also a government body, the legislative branch of the
government, so even a member of the opposition is part of "government"
in its broadest sense.  I would tag it office=government,
government=parliamentarian or something similar.  Executive,
legislative, judicial are all "government".

On 11/3/2018 5:46 AM, Warin wrote:
> On 03/11/18 11:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> I've done office=government with name=Michael Hart MP, Member for
>> Burleigh, which seems to work, but office=politician would also seem OK.
>
> Not all of the elected are 'government' .. a few are 'opposition' :)
>
> Hence my reluctance to use that value.
>
> Oh and there are the occasional ones that desert, not usually ones
> elected to the government though.
>
>>
>> Definitely not an embassy though!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 at 09:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> What tags to use for a local representative to parliament (or any
>> other
>> form of government)?
>>
>>
>> I came across one that was tagged amenity=embassy .. which is not
>> right.
>>
>> But what to use?
>>
>> I have, for the moment, tagged it as office=politician... is there
>> something better?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

[Allan Mustard]

Definitely not an embassy, and not a consulate, either!  More like a
specialized travel agency that focuses only on visa applications.


On 11/3/2018 6:22 AM, Warin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Node: Visalink Germany (4362535595) is tagged as an embassy.
>
> It is a commercial firm that arranges applications to the German
> Embassy/Consulate for a visa, see
>
> https://www.visa-germany.co.za/
>
> I think tags could be office=visa, country=DE,
> website=https://www.visa-germany.co.za/
>
> but not amenity=embassy, diplomatic=visa ...
>
> There are some 13 with the tag diplomatic=visa that may fall under
> this same cloud.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Allan Mustard]

I don't see a problem with duplicating a tag in both the relation and
sections of the object.  In my case I have been mapping the national
highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months.  I have created
relations so that all segments belong to one or more highways (P-1 from
Ashgabat to Koneurgench, for example).  However, most map renderers will
not indicate that, plus the road is known to locals in most areas by
that name, so I have also added it to the name=* and ref=* tags.  Too
much data?  I don't think so.  Each tag serves a slightly different
purpose, and the relation serves a wholly different purpose and is not
visible in most map products.

Please don't go to the Turkmenistan map and delete all my hand-entered
tags on the highways!

Allan Mustard


On 11/2/2018 5:04 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Putting aside the discussion about type for a moment, this topic
> relates to a discussion I'm having with a user about tags and
> multipolygons, specifically where the tags go, so I believe it fits
> into this discussion. I removed the tags from the ways for a section
> of the Trans Alaska Pipeline (TAP) because those same tags were on the
> relation itself. The user asked in a changeset comment why I had done
> that. I replied that IMO, any tags that applied to the pipeline as a
> whole belong on the relation and need not, indeed should not, be
> repeated on each way. The TAP is 1300 km long, has countless bridges
> and sections where it is underground and then overground. The only
> tags that should appear on the ways themselves are attributes of those
> ways, for example, location=overground or location=underground, and
> tags for bridge and layer. Everything else, Wikidata, substance=oil,
> man_made=pipeline, etc, should appear only on the relation. The folks
> who added the pipeline mostly via Tiger imports many years ago tagged
> both. When I would occasionally add or replace a section, I was always
> careful to copy all the tags from a neighboring section to the new
> section. Now, I think that is incorrect.
>
> If those tags appear on each way in addition to the relation,
> maintaining any consistency in the tagging on this beast would be
> almost impossible. I have done quite a bit of re-aligning of the TAP
> over the years as our available imagery improves but have always been
> tentative about removing those redundant tags thinking I would get
> around to it someday. In fact, it seems apparent that this is one
> major reason relations were invented, especially for objects like
> routes — to ensure tagging consistency and connectedness between the
> many individual member ways that comprise the whole.
>
> So, what is the correct and accepted way to tag something like the TAP?
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kenny  <mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional
> tags for a group relation, just type=group, a name and the
> members, but for a site you would need something that
> describes the site, a tag for a group of water areas, so as
> long as all the members are areas (or parts), a multipolygon
> would be better.
>
>
> When the lakes themselves are complex multipolygons with many
> islands, repeating that data for the group is likely to be a
> maintenance nightmare. (I know this from curating
> boundary=protected_area relations that include partial shorelines
> on such lakes. It's especially fun when the boundary splits islands.)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 be a bridge too far.

On 11/1/2018 10:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 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 use 
>> diplomatic=* as an additional tag (i.e., continue current practice) to 
>> specify different flavors, er, types of diplomatic/consular mission?  Should 
>> I modify the proposed feature to that?
>
> +1, maybe “representation” could become “diplomatic_representation” or would 
> that be incorrect for some of them? I see it is unwieldy, but 
> “representation” alone can mean a link of things, so I would suggest to be 
> more verbose.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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 different flavors, er, types of
diplomatic/consular mission?  Should I modify the proposed feature to that?

apm-wa


On 11/1/2018 2:00 PM, Johnparis wrote:
> 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
> mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer
> mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> 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 rest of the
> system, requires the least modifications and I don’t see why it
> shouldn’t work.
>
> +1
>
> Regards
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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
.
 
Any more thoughts?

apm-wa


On 11/1/2018 4:24 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 01.11.2018 oВ 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
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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:

* retain amenity=* as the primary tag but tag consulates separately from
embassies (this is the original proposal, which after being criticized
resurfaced a few days ago).

* 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 of diplomatic or non-diplomatic mission as needed.

* "promote" diplomatic=* to primary tag status, with embassy, consulate,
and other (or some other euphemism as yet undetermined) as the key values
as well as additional (secondary) tags that are used to specify further the
type of diplomatic or non-diplomatic mission as needed.

Nearly all the discussion is posted to the talk page of Proposed
Features/Consulate in the wiki ,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate for
those interested in reviewing it.

Now, as we approach the two-week mark, it would be helpful to get a sense
of whether there is any consensus out there about which of the three main
lines of thought is preferred over the others.  The preferences of the
community responding to this RFC are not clear to me.  Please let me know
which direction you believe would be best, bearing in mind both the
realities of the OSM universe (relative sophistication of mappers, the
desire not to burden unduly renderers of maps, and the degree to which
anybody reads the wiki articles) and our shared desire to make OSM as
accurate and information-rich as possible.  Which of the above approaches
do you think is "best" by those criteria?

Very best regards to one and all who have contributed to this discussion,
and many thanks for your ideas and expressions of concern.

apm-wa
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

[Allan Mustard]

That’s true even in parts of the developed world.  It would be useful!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 4:18 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I agree that it would be useful and reasonable to have frequency (headway’s) 
> and the days a route is served.
> 
> Here in Indonesia, most local buses do not run on a timetable, but it would 
> be very useful to know if there is one bus a day, one per hour, or one per 
> minute. This makes a huge difference, and can be verified without needing to 
> copy an official timetable, if you know the local routes.
> 
> Even back in the USA it would be useful and reasonably maintainable to record 
> the frequency of transit vehicles at different times. Something like “Mo-Fr 
> every 30m 5:30-7:00; 10m 7:00-9:00; 15m 9:00 to 15:00; 10m 15:00 to 18:00; 
> 30m 18:00 to 22:00” 
> 
> This gets you most of the information you need to make a good public transit 
> map, because you can have more frequent routes render with wider lines or 
> brighter colors. And it even provides enough info for approximate route 
> planning.
> 
> In developing countries this would probably be the highest level of detail 
> available. There are no GTFS databases for most of the non-Western world, so 
> it would be useful.
> 
> Joseph
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:04 PM Michael Reichert  
>> wrote:
>> TL;DR I am agains this proposal. Timetables in OSM are an ugly hack.
>> Please store them outside of OSM and link them using foreign keys.
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Leif,
>> 
>> Am 31.10.18 um 00:54 schrieb Leif Rasmussen:
>> > I recently wrote up a proposal page for public transport schedule data.
>> > This information would allow OpenStreetMap to store information about when
>> > or how often certain buses or trains arrive at a platform.
>> > 
>> > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules
>> 
>> I think that the frequency and the days a route is served is sufficient.
>> There should not be any more details about the timetable in OSM beyond
>> that. While public transport looks simple :-) if you look at urban
>> areas, it becomes difficult to model if you go to the boundary of urban
>> areas or even into rural areas or developing countries.
>> 
>> OSM already struggles to model route relations for bus lines which have
>> 15 trips per day but 12 different variants (e.g. bus lines in rural
>> Germany). How do you deal with train lines which run on days matching
>> the following specification only?
>> 
>> > nur Fr, So
>> > auch 22.XII., 26.XII., 27.XII., 1.I., 2.I., 28.II., 6.III., 14.II.,
>> > 18.IV., 22.IV., 30.IV., 1.V., 2.V., 29.V., 30.V., 11.VI., 2.X., 30.X.
>> > nicht 21.IV., 31.V., 1.VI., 9.VI., 21.VI., 4.X.
>> >
>> > Fr = Friday
>> > So = Sunday
>> > nur … = on … only
>> > auch … = also on …
>> > nicht … = not on …
>> 
>> This specification changes every year and it can't be simplified to "Fr,
>> Su and public holidays in at least two German states". Currently, many
>> route relations don't have to be modified every year but your tagging
>> schema would force mappers to do so. And the example above is quite
>> simple. In practice, the specification is even longer because many
>> constructions to refurbish the railway network a running and lead to
>> different departures nearly every second weekend or trains don't serve
>> the whole line from start to end because parts of the line are closed on
>> some weekends/weeks during the year due to constructions.
>> 
>> How would you deal with lines which have a clear interval of 60 minutes
>> if you round all depatures and arrival times? There are a lot of train
>> lines where the times differ by a +-3 minutes through the day. Peak vs.
>> off-peak is not the reason.
>> 
>> OSM was designed to be a database for geometries with attributes. The
>> database design of OSM has some issues but I am sure that database
>> designed for public transport timetables would not require the timetable
>> to be encoded into relation membership roles and relation tags.
>> 
>> Using OSM to encode timetables looks more like a ugly hack and should be
>> solved by having some kind of foreign key as tag of the route relation
>> which is used by a separate database project under a free and open
>> license which is designed for and used to store timetable information.
>> 
>> Nobody forbids anyone to run a project for crowdsourced timetable
>> information. But it is out of scope for OSM.
>> 
>> Your tagging proposal suggests to use relation membership roles to store
>> depatures in a way like that:
>> "platform:Mo-Fr 08:40, 09:40, 10:40, 11:40, 12:40, 13:40, 14:40, 15:40,
>> 16:40, 17:10, 17:40, 18:10, 18:40, 19:40, 20:40"
>> 
>> Aren't membership roles limited to 256 characters, too?
>> 
>> In addition, your tagging schema is incompatible with the current public
>> transport tagging schema and probably all recently discussed proposals
>> which aim to replace or improve it. All of them know a role "platform".
>> From my point of view, relation 

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

[Allan Mustard]

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.

The vast majority of users will not care if it is a consulate or consulate 
general. They will want the location so they know where to go to apply for a 
visa or a passport. Let’s not be hypnotized by the complexity—simple top-level 
choices for simple mappers that can be expanded with additional tags by more 
experienced mappers.  It will make rendering easier snd the database more 
accurate.  That is my objective here.



Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.  The term "high commission" would be preserved 
>> both in the embassy=* tag and the name=* tag.
> Mappers don't do sub tags well
> Example;
> Over 11,000 amenity=embassy
> Some 4,000 diplomatic=* 
> 
> Less than half the 'embassies' have the tag diplomatic, yet over 95% have a 
> name tag. 
> So they will use the name tag (that renders) together with the 
> amenity=embassy tag (that renders) but they are reluctant to use the 
> diplomatic tag (that does not render).
> 
> I think the same will occur to these embassy=* tags.
> 
> Another decrease in information is consulate and consult general ... there 
> may be more if I dig. 
>>> The VCDR does not mention embassy. It has 'mission' and 'consular' but no 
>>> 'embassy', nor 'high commission' etc.
>>> 
>> As I pointed out in an earlier post, "embassy" technically and legally 
>> consists of the people dispatched to a foreign country on a diplomatic 
>> mission.  By convention and in vernacular use, "embassy" is used to denote 
>> the physical structure of the diplomatic mission in which said people 
>> operate.  The VCDR is a legal document (a treaty).  It uses legal language.  
>> I have provided a great deal of detail (much of which would be captured in 
>> the wiki, ultimately) describing the various flavors of diplomatic missions, 
>> which broadly speaking fall into three categories: embassies, consulates, 
>> and other.  If you doubt my word, as you seem to, please consult with your 
>> local ministry of foreign affairs.  If you are willing to take the word of 
>> Wikipedia, its article on diplomatic missions is pretty good: 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Naming
>>>> Then the real fun begins.  As I have read through the various comments and 
>>>> suggestions, it has occurred to me that the following hierarchy of tags 
>>>> would potentially fill the bill:
>>>> The three values/categories (embassy, consulate, other) would have 
>>>> specific subcategories.  If you wanted to do a key search in overpass 
>>>> turbo, it would still be possible. The subcategories would be 
>>>> 
>>>> * embassy=[embassy/yes, nunciature, high_commission, interests_section, 
>>>> mission, delegation, branch_embassy]
>>>> 
>>>> * consulate=[consulate/yes, consulate_general, consular_agency, 
>>>> consular_office, honorary_con
>>>> 
>>> The above 'consolidations' ... loose information.
>>> 
>> How do they lose information?  All information is preserved in the 
>> additional tags.
> Those additional tags probably won't be used, see above. 
>>> If required that consolidation can be done in rendering. 
>>> 
>>> But, I think, most renders now ignore them and simply render all of them 
>>> the same. And, I think, that will continue for quite some time. 
>>> 
>>> If a render chose to distinguish between them then they can do so, they 
>>> cannot distinguish between an embassy and a high commission if that 
>>> information is not there.
>>> 
>> I cannot conceive of a circumstance under which anyone would want to render 
>> embassies and high commissions differently.  They are different names for 
>> the same level of diplomatic mission (a mission covered by the VCDR and 
>> headed by an ambassador).  If a renderer wanted to distinguish them, it 
>> could be done wit

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 consul (i.e., subject to the VCCR).
>
> diplomatic=minor_mission? If there's neither a consul nor an
> ambassador, it must be somehow minor ;-)
>
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 ambassador and will certainly take umbrage with me
if her mission is somehow described as "minor".
>
> if these are all exclusive, it could also be:
>
> amenity=[embassy, consulate, minor_mission]
>
I think we are past the point of calling diplomatic missions "amenity". 
We're now down to either "office=diplomatic" or "diplomatic=*"  There
has been broad consensus expressed that diplomatic missions are not
amenities.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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
preserved both in the embassy=* tag and the name=* tag.
>
> The VCDR does not mention embassy. It has 'mission' and 'consular' but
> no 'embassy', nor 'high commission' etc.
>
As I pointed out in an earlier post, "embassy" technically and legally
consists of the people dispatched to a foreign country on a diplomatic
mission.  By convention and in vernacular use, "embassy" is used to
denote the physical structure of the diplomatic mission in which said
people operate.  The VCDR is a legal document (a treaty).  It uses legal
language.  I have provided a great deal of detail (much of which would
be captured in the wiki, ultimately) describing the various flavors of
diplomatic missions, which broadly speaking fall into three categories:
embassies, consulates, and other.  If you doubt my word, as you seem to,
please consult with your local ministry of foreign affairs.  If you are
willing to take the word of Wikipedia, its article on diplomatic
missions is pretty good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Naming
>> Then the real fun begins.  As I have read through the various
>> comments and suggestions, it has occurred to me that the following
>> hierarchy of tags would potentially fill the bill:
>>
>> The three values/categories (embassy, consulate, other) would have
>> specific subcategories.  If you wanted to do a key search in overpass
>> turbo, it would still be possible. The subcategories would be
>>
>> * embassy=[embassy/yes, nunciature, high_commission,
>> interests_section, mission, delegation, branch_embassy]
>>
>> * consulate=[consulate/yes, consulate_general, consular_agency,
>> consular_office, honorary_con
>>
> The above 'consolidations' ... loose information.
>
How do they lose information?  All information is preserved in the
additional tags.
>
> If required that consolidation can be done in rendering.
>
> But, I think, most renders now ignore them and simply render all of
> them the same. And, I think, that will continue for quite some time.
>
> If a render chose to distinguish between them then they can do so,
> they cannot distinguish between an embassy and a high commission if
> that information is not there.
>
I cannot conceive of a circumstance under which anyone would want to
render embassies and high commissions differently.  They are different
names for the same level of diplomatic mission (a mission covered by the
VCDR and headed by an ambassador).  If a renderer wanted to distinguish
them, it could be done with an IF statement testing the existence of the
string "high_commission" in either the name=* tag or the embassy=* tag. 
Same goes for an overpass turbo search.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[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 quite sensitive to the need for consistency and a finite
number of possible permutations while also accommodating the need to
cover every eventuality.  Hierarchies are designed for exactly that
purpose.  After much back and forth at this point I am proposing a
hierarchy that I believe meets all needs without being overly complex,
and which will accommodate the novice mapper (diplomatic=embassy,
period) and the advanced mapper (diplomatic=embassy,
embassy=interests_section, etc.).  And by the way, it is radically
different from my original proposal.

diplomatic=* would become a top-level, primary tag.  It would have three
categories: embassy, consulate, other.  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 consul (i.e., subject to
the VCCR).

Then the real fun begins.  As I have read through the various comments
and suggestions, it has occurred to me that the following hierarchy of
tags would potentially fill the bill:

The three values/categories (embassy, consulate, other) would have
specific subcategories.  If you wanted to do a key search in overpass
turbo, it would still be possible. The subcategories would be

* embassy=[embassy/yes, nunciature, high_commission, interests_section,
mission, delegation, branch_embassy]

* consulate=[consulate/yes, consulate_general, consular_agency,
consular_office, honorary_consul]

* other=[liaison_office, representative_office, subnational]

(if I have missed any, please don't condemn me, just diplomatically
mention it, as it's late at night here). These subcategories would allow
overpass turbo searches as well as proper rendering by applications. 
They would also constitute a finite universe that covers all
contingencies (possibilities are indeed finite), making rendering and
searching much easier.

Now the super fun:  as I plowed through the comments, I realized we need
some functional categories, too, what in OSM are sometimes called
subtypes.  I am inspired by the way we specify types of motor fuel
available at a gas station:

* diplomatic:type=[trade_office, assistance_office, cultural_center,
user_defined]  If these are located away from the main chancery (which
happens a lot), they need to be mapped separately; if however such
offices are inside the main chancery (which also happens a lot) they
would not be mapped separately. 

We have also discussed having a tag like this, or something similar:

* diplomatic:services:[non-immigrant visas, immigrant visas, citizen
services]=[yes/no]

As to some of Johnparis' specific questions/objections:

*I find this sentence in one of your emails to be particularly
problematic on this subject:*
*
*
*/A trade mission (aka "trade commissioner", "commercial office",
"trade representative") can be part of any of the three categories;
it is not accredited separately/**.**
**
**If someone needs to be an expert on international law to determine
the tag, there's a problem with the tagging scheme.*

You don't need to be an expert.  You just need to be able to read.  If a
trade office is attached to an embassy, it is tagged as
diplomatic=embassy.  If it is attached to a consulate, it is tagged as
diplomatic=consulate.  If it is part of a liaison office or similar
"other" category, it is tagged diplomatic=other.  You don't have to be a
lawyer or international relations expert; you just have to read the sign
on the door or peruse the establishment's website to figure it out.

*delegation -- not mentioned**
**UN -- not mentioned -- probably should be same as permanent_mission**
**trade_delegation -- not mentioned**
**visa -- not mentioned (I believe these are for private companies
that handle visas on behalf of consulates -- where to categorize?)*

*dele**gation* is typically considered a type of embassy (U.S.
Delegation to the United Nations, for example).  It is headed by an
ambassador.  Refer back to the rule of thumb that if it has an
ambassador, it is an embassy.

*UN* is not a separate type of diplomatic establishment.  It is an
international organization.  UN headquarters should be tagged office=*
but its diplomatic missions abroad should be tagged as
diplomatic=other.  They are not headed by ambassadors (please see my
previous comments on this subject).  Same holds for OSCE, OECD, and so on.

*trade_delegation* is another name for
trade_office=trade_representative=commercial_office, and we should seek
some modicum of standardization to avoid overproliferation of tags. If I
were an American chauvinist, I would insist on commercial_office, since
that is what the U.S. 

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

[Allan Mustard]

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, 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 "people's bureaus" or some
other formulation, it can be safely tagged "embassy".

* If it has a sign on it that says "consulate", it is a consulate, and
the sign will specify what flavor of consulate.

After that it is safest to ask somebody at the institution in question
whether it is part of the embassy or consulate (like my American Center)
or not (like TIFA), though status can sometimes be divined by reading
the institution's website. If all else fails, check the host country's
diplomatic list and see if the chief of mission is on it.  If s/he is
not listed, the institution is not diplomatic (diplomatic=other).  If
s/he is listed but has a non-diplomatic title (e.g., "director" or
"coordinator" as opposed to "ambassador", "charge d'affaires",
"minister", "counselor", "first/second/third secretary", or "attache")
the mission is pretty clearly not under the VCDR (diplomatic=other). 
Here we walk a fine line.  TIFA is an agency of the Turkish government,
hence diplomatic=other.  American Councils, which operates our American
Corners in Turkmenistan, is an NGO operating under contract with the
U.S. government, so our American Corners are not diplomatic, but rather
NGO offices (office=ngo). Parsing all of this constitutes a good excuse
to recruit diplomats to OSM to help with mapping :-)

Two more examples and I'll stop--I can hear the eyes rolling all the way
from Ashgabat:

* The Apostolic Nunciature in Ashgabat is headed most of the time by a
charge d'affaires because the nuncio is resident in Ankara and only
visits periodically.  The charge d'affaires is nominally the "cultural
attache".  Since it is a nunciature, we know it is under the VCDR.

* The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Asian
Development Bank, and the United Nations missions in Ashgabat (there are
two) enjoy diplomatic status under the Bretton Woods arrangement (the
banks) and the UN Charter.  Technically that makes the EBRD and ADB
diplomatic missions, but we tag them as banks, not as embassies (under
the new construct we might however tag them diplomatic=other in addition
to tagging them as banks).  The lead UN Mission, in a new construct with
diplomatic=* as a primary tag, would be tagged diplomatic=other since
its head is called "resident coordinator" and the UN Mission is covered
by the UN Charter, not the VCDR. 

Would the lay person know all this?  Not until reading the wiki articles
we will need to compose if a primary diplomatic=* tag is adopted. 
Sometimes it is not completely obvious and you have to do a little
research. 

On 10/29/2018 3:08 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:32, Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> 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 diplomatic status
> so would be tagged diplomatic=other, other=assistance office.
> * The Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be
> diplomatic=other, other=trade office because it is accorded
> diplomatic status by bilateral agreement, not the VCDR (there is
> no Libyan Embassy here). 
> * The American Center would be a node in an office building tagged
> diplomatic=embassy, embassy=cultural center, while the Iranian
> Cultural Center would be a building with the same tags, since both
> enjoy diplomatic status as sections of their respective embassies. 
> * The Russian Consulate General has its own building and grounds
> separate from the embassy, so would be an enclosed way tagged as
> diplomatic=consulate, consulate=consulate general.   
>
>
> Thank you for a very detailed, very interesting post, Allan.
>
> One question, please.
>
> Is there any way that a layman such as myself would know that "The
> Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be diplomatic=other,
> other=trade office because it is accorded diplomatic status by
> bilateral agreement, not the VCDR", or is this sort of thing only
> known to Govt / diplomatic staff?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

embassy, as is "high
commission", whereas cultural centers and trade offices located
separately from the chancery are functionally distinct branches of an
embassy, easily distinguished by their prominent signage ("please visit
us and absorb culture/buy our goods").

Here are some illustrations based on Ashgabat, a capital city with about
three dozen diplomatic missions. 

* 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 diplomatic status so
would be tagged diplomatic=other, other=assistance office.
* The Libyan Economic Cooperation Bureau would be diplomatic=other,
other=trade office because it is accorded diplomatic status by bilateral
agreement, not the VCDR (there is no Libyan Embassy here). 
* The American Center would be a node in an office building tagged
diplomatic=embassy, embassy=cultural center, while the Iranian Cultural
Center would be a building with the same tags, since both enjoy
diplomatic status as sections of their respective embassies. 
* The Russian Consulate General has its own building and grounds
separate from the embassy, so would be an enclosed way tagged as
diplomatic=consulate, consulate=consulate general.  

An example from New Delhi, where I was stationed for three years:

* The State of Virginia (U.S.) Office would be tagged diplomatic=other,
other=subnational.

Sorry for the long-winded reply but I thought your question deserved a
comprehensive response. 

apm-wa 

On 10/28/2018 3:52 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 5:48 AM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> 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 facility would be apparent in
> the name=* tag, obviating the need for additional subtags; and
>
> [,,,]
>
> It depends.  Are all of the facilities that would be tagged as "other"
> sui generis or do some of them
> fall into specific categories?  If there are specific categories that
> some of them fall under, then
> giving them their own values instead of other would be sensible.
>
> Tag values are cheap and promote consistency.  Consider somebody
> wanting to use overpass-turbo
> to find a particular type of diplomatic facility.  A search for
> diplomatic="fubar" is a nice, easy query.  A
> search for diplomatic="other" and name~"fubar" works if you're sure
> the name is going to contain
> "fubar" somewhere within it.  If you don't know in advance what the
> name is then with only
> diplomatic=other you're not going to be able to narrow it down to a
> specific category of other (if
> specific categories of other exist).
>
> OTOH, if "trade missions," "liaison offices," "interests sections,"
> and the like are merely marketing
> terms for "I can't believe it's not an embassy" then "other" suffices.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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, film at 11):

a) consulates are not embassies;
b) neither embassies nor consulates are amenities;
c) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is a
trend toward thinking office=diplomatic is suboptimal and
diplomatic=* needs to be elevated to primary tag status;
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 facility would be apparent in the
name=* tag, obviating the need for additional subtags; and
f) diplomatic:services:[non-immigrant visas, immigrant visas,
citizen services]=[yes/no] tags would be desirable.

I have two questions:
1) Should I withdraw the current amenity=consulate proposal and submit a
new one based on the above (no harm to my ego involved; I am not
emotionally tied to the original proposal), or
2) Modify the current proposal to fit the above with an eye to a vote on
or about November 4?

Or is this premature and should I allow discussion on the current
proposal to continue?

In any event please note that I have been posting most e-mail responses
to the Talk:Proposed features/Consulate page at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate so
the record of our discussion will be preserved.  I have also added some
counterproposals and suggestion modifications to the main proposal page.

Many thanks to one and all again,
cheers,
apm-wa
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 know what they are doing update the various rendering
rules.  I've learned the hard way as a bureaucrat not to assume that my
bright idea will not create undue burdens on those who must implement
it, so am proceeding with caution, and seeking a happy medium of
accuracy and minimal burden on the community.

On 10/28/2018 1:18 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 7:50 PM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> 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 how it seems from the
> outside.  If you think
> office is the most appropriate designation you've seen (and, I assume,
> you can think of) then office
> it is.  Unless we make diplomatic the primary tag.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
> Old news.  I've been accused of that for years.  But numerous
> Turkmen government officials have MAPS.ME <http://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 have much trouble getting approval to
> use Govt data? :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 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 Turkmenistan, is an active OSM
> mapper and has substantially contributed to mapping Turkmenistan
> in OSM outside of his official duties.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan
>
>  
> *"Breaking News"*
>
> U.S. ambassador to Turkmenistan accused of spying under guise of
> surveying for OSM
>
> :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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 and needs no 
appointment to see me.  Yes, this actually happened once!  My point is that 
diplomatic facilities are no more open to the public than are private companies.

As an aside, in the case of American Embassies security is tighter since the 
1998 bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. Getting through embassy security is 
similar to going to a first-world airport, including magnetometers, X-ray 
scanners, and hand wands. They are definitely not open to the public.

As for the question of embassies and consulates including residential space, I 
think it prudent and sufficiently accurate to focus on the primary intended use 
of the object. We do that all the time when mapping (a CVS pharmacy in 
Arlington, Virginia, is and should be tagged as a pharmacy, not as a stationer 
or convenience shop or liquor store even though it also sells office supplies 
and snack foods, even beer and wine).  Same logic applies here, methinks.

If anyone wants to write a non-paper on the subject, please feel free ;-)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 28, 2018, at 12:31 AM, marc marc  wrote:
> 
>> 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 appointment, it is not a shop)
> while an embassy is often "open to the public" oriented, at least
> for some services.
> 
> an consulate sometimes containing the consul's residence,
> I have trouble to tag the whole with a main tag office=*
> 
> maybe the office tag can be moved to "usefull combinaison"
> or "possible combinaison". if the consulate look like
> to be "office only", the a mapper may add the office tag,
> but not mandatory.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

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 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 diplomatic=[embassy, consulate, other, yes].
> Would "yes" not be implied already by office=diplomatic? If someone
> wasn't sure they could just use office=diplomatic without diplomatic=*.
>
> (Side note, I've seen diplomatic offices that were so cordoned off by
> local security forces that you wouldn't even come close enough to
> determine whether this is a government facility or a diplomatic one. Of
> course you can always ask the guards but maybe that only makes you
> suspicious ;)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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 include residences for embassy staff (not only the ambassadors), for
example.  I agree that micromapping is a bridge too far; we should
simply map them as embassies.  Overall this strikes me as a non-issue. 
Yes, we live at embassies, we work at embassies, and the residential
quarters often double as work space.  Tag 'em as embassies, period. 
That goes for ambassadors' residences, too, though I must warn you that
most ambassadors don't want their residences mapped for security reasons. 

As for the debate over amenity vs. office, an embassy is much more than
an amenity, and so is a consulate.  There is an argument in favor of
calling them amenities, but the concept of an embassy or consulate as an
amenity is based on the POV of a tourist or business traveler, and does
not include the totality of what an embassy, consulate, and
non-diplomatic mission (it would be a stretch to categorize the non-dip
PLO and Taliban offices abroad as amenities, for example) do every
single day.  It is IMHO too limiting.  Office=* is a better descriptor. 
If you have strong feelings on this, please voice them, and please tell
me what I am missing.

Given the effort required to create a new main key, and the split in
opinions whether diplomatic=* should be a new main key, I am leaning
toward office=diplomatic, diplomatic=[embassy, consulate, other] as a
happy medium. If there is not some sort of revelation over the next
week, when we hit the two-week mark for the RFC I am leaning toward a
gut and rewrite of the amenity=consulate proposal (or withdrawal of the
current proposal and submission of a new one) along those lines.  I
welcome another week of discussion before making a decision on what to
put to a vote.

As for oxymorons, welcome to my world!  Wait a minute, I have another
non-paper to read.  :-)

And Paul, you can find the switchboard telephone number of my embassy in
OSM
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/340379440#map=19/37.94136/58.38829>. 

apm-wa

On 10/27/2018 6:22 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:52 AM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> 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 relations
> with a foreign government, both resident and non-resident.  The
> "chancery" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancery_(diplomacy)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancery_%28diplomacy%29>  is the
> office building, complex, or office flat where the embassy
> operates.  I don't think we want to be quite that doctrinaire
> (office=chancery, anyone?) since "embassy" is the term in common
> if somewhat imprecise use for a building or campus where a
> diplomatic mission operates.   
>
>
> We have to walk a fine line between what is technically correct and
> the expectations of mappers and
> users.  So I'd go with "embassy" and clarify the situation in the wiki
> for the benefit of pedants.  There
> could be another ambassador out there mapping for OSM who might take
> exception to that
> decision without an explanation of the thinking behind it, and it's
> certain this mailing list has many,
> many pedants.
>
> c) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is a
> trend toward thinking office=diplomatic is a better choice than
> office=government; and
> d) the office=diplomatic tag in tandem with diplomatic=* would
> meet OSM guidelines and support more accurate mapping.
>
>
> I 100% agree that office=diplomatic is better than office=government. 
> I'm split on dropping office
> entirely and using diplomatic as the main key.  The ambassador also
> sleeps in his/her
> residence and I think micromapping the building to distinguish between
> office and non-office
> functions is overkill.
>
> If my sense of growing consensus is correct, I suggest that
> diplomatic=* would include only [embassy, consulate, non-diplomatic].
>
>
> Perhaps, but I'd write the proposal to not insist absolutely that only
> those three terms are
> permissible because otherwise mappers end up with square peg/round
> hole should the
> unforeseen arise.  OTOH, you have a very thorough understanding of
> what might arise, and I can
> only guess, so maybe those three will always be adequate.  Except
> that, as others ha

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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 Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and that's the
ultimate authority.  I raised this whole issue because a consulate is
not an embassy; having opened that can of worms it is illogical to
correct that error only to insert another.  If you prefer "other" to
Wikipedia's "non-diplomatic" I can probably live with that.  I cannot,
however, agree with calling AIT, TECRO, the Taliban office in Doha, or
for that matter the State of Virginia office in New Delhi "embassies". 
They would be "other" and not "embassy" simply because they are not
embassies.  They do not enjoy diplomatic immunities or diplomatic status
under the VCDR, any more than consulates do.  Now excuse me for a few
minutes, please, as I have a non-paper to read.

BTW even though the United States does not recognize Palestine, I mapped
the Palestinian Embassy in Ashgabat as soon as it opened because in the
OSM domain calling it an embassy falls under OSM rules, not U.S.
government rules.  Turkmenistan recognizes Palestine and grants its
"embassy" that status under the VCDR.  I mapped it as a private citizen,
not as an officer of the United States, and my mapping does not reflect
U.S. government policy in any way, shape, or form.

On 10/27/2018 2:57 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:52 PM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> 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 not simply diplomatic=other? Also we
> should allow diplomatic=yes if the mapper doesn't know the exact type.
> Therefore diplomatic=[embassy, consulate, other, yes]. (So
> diplomatic=embassy applies to regular embassies, Commonwealth of
> Nations' high commissions, Vatican apostolic nunciatures, etc.)
>  
>
> It also offers a potentially neat solution for dealing with the
> non-diplomatic representations of Taiwan and the United States in
> each others' countries
>
>
> I think we should call a spade a spade. While the Taipei Economic and
> Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) in the U.S. and the American
> Institute in Taiwan (AIT) are not de jure embassies in order to adhere
> to the so-called "One China" policy, these offices are de facto
> embassies with their head officers having (I think) ambassadorial rank
> with largely the same rights and privileges. Since OSM mapping the
> mainland Chinese territory is already an illegal activity w.r.t. the
> PRC's laws, I don't think assigning the diplomatic=embassy tag to the
> ROC-related diplomatic representative offices would make things worse
> and would cause a diplomatic incident. (Well, you as a diplomat,
> probably cannot say so because you are bound by your Department of
> State's adherence to the One China policy, but almost every other
> mapper isn't a diplomat so we are free to map however we want. [I can
> already see the BuzzFeed headline: "U.S. envoy to Turkmenistan admits
> Americans have diplomatic relations with Taiwan".])
>  
>
> and other non-diplomatic representations, such as the Taliban
> office in Doha.
>
>
> (This sounds interesting! /[Goes and browses the "Taliban in Qatar"
> Wikipedia article]/)
>  
>
> I think limiting the number of options for diplomatic=* to three
> would simplify mapping (and avoid confusing mappers not steeped in
> the lore of diplomacy); the particular type of diplomatic mission
> is in any case reflected in the name=* tag and needs not be
> duplicated in the diplomatic=* tag (e.g., "High Commission of
> Malaysia", "Embassy of Poland", "U.S. Interests Section",
> "Consulate General of Japan").  If the status of a mission changes
> (e.g., the upgrade of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to an
> embassy), changing the name would suffice; no re-tagging would be
> necessary.
>
>
> I generally agree with this idea, but with the Taiwanese caveat I
> mentioned above.
>  
>
> P.S.  Regarding the question posed overnight as to whether one may
> simply drop in on an ambassador's residence, any of you who are
> contributing substantively to this discussion are welcome to drop
> by my residence in Ashgabat any time you are in town :-)  Just
> please 

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

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"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancery_(diplomacy) is the office
building, complex, or office flat where the embassy operates.  I don't
think we want to be quite that doctrinaire (office=chancery, anyone?)
since "embassy" is the term in common if somewhat imprecise use for a
building or campus where a diplomatic mission operates.   

IMHO defining the ambassador's residence as an "office" would not be
wholly incorrect and only slightly mysterious to mappers and users of
our map, since the ambassador's residence is where a lot of work gets
done.  Half of my residence is devoted to space for official
entertaining, and I have a home office.  Also, WRT the point of certain
ambassadors' residences being historic manors, that's not really a big
issue since the vast majority of ambassadors' residences are neither
historic nor manors (my modest two-bedroom house certainly is neither,
and many ambassadors here in Ashgabat reside in apartments).  If there
is strenuous objection to my opinion on this, please offer an
alternative to office=diplomatic!

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
toward thinking office=diplomatic is a better choice than
office=government; and
d) the office=diplomatic tag in tandem with diplomatic=* would meet OSM
guidelines and support more accurate mapping.

If my sense of growing consensus is correct, I suggest that diplomatic=*
would include only [embassy, consulate, non-diplomatic]. The Wikipedia
article on diplomatic missions is not bad with respect to its
descriptions of different types of diplomatic missions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission.  It also offers a
potentially neat solution for dealing with the non-diplomatic
representations of Taiwan and the United States in each others'
countries and other non-diplomatic representations, such as the Taliban
office in Doha.  I think limiting the number of options for diplomatic=*
to three would simplify mapping (and avoid confusing mappers not steeped
in the lore of diplomacy); the particular type of diplomatic mission is
in any case reflected in the name=* tag and needs not be duplicated in
the diplomatic=* tag (e.g., "High Commission of Malaysia", "Embassy of
Poland", "U.S. Interests Section", "Consulate General of Japan").  If
the status of a mission changes (e.g., the upgrade of the U.S. Interests
Section in Havana to an embassy), changing the name would suffice; no
re-tagging would be necessary.

There is a recurring sentiment in the discussion to add
diplomatic:services:*=[yes/no].  From my POV the services listed would
consist of [immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas, citizen services]. 
Those are the broad categories of services consulates and embassies
offer their clienteles. For instance, if the consular section of an
embassy or a consulate offers non-immigrant visas, it usually offers all
types of them (tourist, student, academic exchange, temporary work,
etc.).  Yes, there are exceptions, but that's what websites are for, and
I don't think it is OSM's job to delve so deeply in the details in order
to let Mexican migrant farm workers know that H1B visas are only
available via the American Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez.  Our
solution to this is to add the website URL for the convenience of OSM
users. All embassies and consulates offer services to commercial
interests of their fellow countrymen (or at least, they are supposed to)
so I see no need to add diplomatic:services:commercial=[yes/no].  In
those cases where an embassy includes a separately officed trade
representation (as Russia tends to do), the purpose of that mission is
obvious from the name=* tag.

apm-wa

P.S.  Regarding the question posed overnight as to whether one may
simply drop in on an ambassador's residence, any of you who are
contributing substantively to this discussion are welcome to drop by my
residence in Ashgabat any time you are in town :-)  Just please call
ahead to make sure I'll be home.

On 10/27/2018 1:13 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 prefer if we just have
>> the office=diplomatic + diplomatic=* tag combination instead. This
>> nicely parallels and complements the office=government + government=*
>> tag combination[1] that we already have, but instead applying to
>> foreign governments.
>>
>> [1] 

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

[Allan Mustard]

Regarding the question of using office=* as the primary key or
diplomatic=* I note that the Key:diplomatic wiki article admonishes:

Note
Do not use diplomatic=* without amenity=embassy since it is not
independently recognised by renderers.

How do we get around that (probably a naive question on my part since I
am not a programmer)?

On 10/27/2018 12:03 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 26.10.2018 o 20:52, Paul Allen pisze:
>>
>> If you can come up with a better value than "diplomatic" then do so. 
>> If you don't like it being under
>> the office key, maybe have diplomatic=* as the primary key rather
>> than a secondary key under
>> office (although that may well contravene OSM naming conventions I've
>> never heard of).  But if
>> we can have healthcare=doctor as an alternative to amenity=doctors or
>> office=doctor then I don't see why diplomatic=embassy would be a bad
>> idea.
>
>
> Yes, I also think that we don't have to (over)use amenity or office
> keys. We have diplomatic key spacename already defined and used (2015
> was groundbreaking here), so I would go with that in general:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adiplomatic
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/diplomatic#values
>
>
> -- 
> "Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

Colin, et al,

Thanks for this.  You have not misunderstood the doctrine at all, but
you have not quite taken it to its full conclusion.  The examples you
cite involve interaction between the embassy and the outside world
(pizza delivery, lease contracts, employment contracts of local staff,
radio transmitters, and diplomatic vehicles maneuvering on host-country
roads).  Radio (wireless) is specifically covered in the Vienna
Convention because radio waves propagate beyond the boundaries of the
embassy.  That said, if a murder is committed on embassy premises, the
sending side has jurisdiction (in the case of the United States, the
Bureau of Diplomatic Security of the U.S. Department of State).  Once
the lease is signed, the embassy cannot be evicted even if the rental
payment is not paid (for a similar issue see this news item
<https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/how-dc-plans-to-deal-with-derelict-embassies/485736302>
about a derelict embassy building in Washington, DC).  Once the embassy
chancery is constructed, if the sending side decides to renovate the
interior of the embassy, it is done in accord with sending-side
construction standards, not necessarily host-country standards.  No,
pizza is not considered an export, but it is an item of trivial value
akin to the duty-free bottle of fine single malt Scotch I brought back
from Dubai two weeks ago; however, if I import 1,250 pounds of
consumables via sea freight, they enter the host-country import
statistics.  Regarding personnel, host-country personnel must be hired
and paid in accord with host-country law in most cases, though in many
countries embassies pay in dollars despite host-country laws requiring
payment in local currency and cite extraterritoriality as the legal
grounds for this.  Sending side personnel (like me) are hired, paid, and
fired in accord with sending side rules, period.  And yes, we pay fines,
but we don't pay taxes.  Please note that immunities and
extraterritoriality are defined not only in the Vienna Convention at
this point but also by court precedents established over the past 57
years, which is one reason the Department of State has a large staff of
lawyers.

As to why the .gov top-level domain is used only by government bodies in
the United States, that's because Al Gore DARPA invented the internet
and DARPA is a U.S. institution, so we got first dibs, that's all.  Many
other governments use their two-byte country top-level domain with
either go. or gov. in front of it, e.g., go.jp for the Japanese
government, gov.uk for the UK government, and so on.  In response to
some of the comments, a) no, that doesn't mean the U.S. government is
the only government, and I never said that; b) yes, these gov.xx and
go.xx domains are used for embassies' and consulates' e-mail and
websites, and c) the point I'm trying to make is that embassies and
consulates are government offices, even if not of the host
country--their staff are government employees, their budgets come from a
government somewhere, and their property is government property. 

I believe we are approaching some sort of consensus that amenity=embassy
is not adequate and that something needs to be done to correct this. 
Are we in agreement that

a) consulates are not embassies;
b) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is no
agreement that office=government is appropriate;
c) neither is an amenity;
d) office=diplomatic is a reasonable option that while not utterly
precise is close enough (I don't love it but can live with it), and that
in tandem with diplomatic=[embassy, consulate, etc.] would meet OSM
guidelines?

We're only five days into the RFC so lots of time left to comment!

cheers,
Allan Mustard
apm-wa

On 10/26/2018 1:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2018-10-26 03:26, Allan Mustard wrote:
>> Under the legal doctrine of extraterritoriality, the embassy or
>> consulate is considered to be located in the sending country for
>> purposes of legal jurisdiction.  Extraterritoriality is virtually
>> unlimited in the case of an embassy; it is more limited in the case
>> of a consulate but still exists 
>
> Allan,
>
> That doesn't sound quite right. As I read the UN conventions, the
> diplomatic staff have some immunities which are linked to their
> personal status and not linked to their being in the embassy
> buildings. The premises themselves are inviolable by the host state,
> which means local laws sometimes cannot actually be enforced without
> invitation from the Ambassador. However, the embassy as a premises is
> still part of the receiving country. Delivering pizza to them is not
> an export. The lease contract is under the laws of the host country.
> Employment contracts for support staff can be under the law of
> the host country. Their radio transmitters need to be licensed by the
> host country. Diplomatic cars have to pay speeding fines and parking
&g

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

[Allan Mustard]

They end in gov.tm, and UK government domains end in gov.uk.  UK embassy 
employees abroad have addresses ending in fco.gov.uk 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 26. Oct 2018, at 05:14, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>> 
>> My official email address ends in .gov :-).
> 
> 
> what kind of proofs Warin’s point, because .gov is for US government domains 
> while you are not in the US.
> 
> Turkmen government domains don’t end with.gov, or do they?
> 
> Cheers, Martin 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

My official email address ends in .gov :-).  And diplomats are by definition 
government employees.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 7:26 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In OSM I would expect the term government not to be a foreign government but 
> a resident one. 
> So I would use a different term, office=diplomatic for example. 
> 
>> On 26/10/18 12:26, Allan Mustard wrote:
>> Embassies and consulates are definitely government facilities/offices.  
>> Under the legal doctrine of extraterritoriality, the embassy or consulate is 
>> considered to be located in the sending country for purposes of legal 
>> jurisdiction.  Extraterritoriality is virtually unlimited in the case of an 
>> embassy; it is more limited in the case of a consulate but still exists.  
>> Thus office=government, government=[diplomatic, consular}, 
>> diplomatic=[embassy, high_commission, nunciature, legation, 
>> interests_section, branch_embassy, liaison_office] might be what we are 
>> looking for.
>> 
>>> On 10/25/2018 2:24 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>> On 2018-10-25 06:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 11:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Err no.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The 'government' is not 'foreign' but of federal/state/local jurisdiction 
>>>>> to that place.
>>>>> 
>>>>> landuse=diplomatic???  
>>>>  
>>>> Yes, but that patch of ground is owned by the "Australian" govt - it's 
>>>> just that it's located in the US or where-ever! 
>>>>  
>>> For the avoidance of doubt, it is owned by the "Australian govt" in the 
>>> same sense that I own my house (but it may also be rented or leased). It is 
>>> not outside of the host country's jurisdiction, if that's what you were 
>>> implying by "owned".
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

On reflection landuse=* is probably not a good approach since many
embassies and consulates are not stand-alone buildings on a parcel of
land, but rather are offices in an office building (flats in a block of
flats as Andrew wrote).  See for example the Embassy of Qatar in
Ashgabat, which occupies office space in a business center, and is
mapped as a node (point) inside the way that represents the business
center.  It is one of many (there are two more in that business
center).  The business center at the Ak Altyn Hotel houses three
embassies.  Each is a node inside the way that is the business center.

apm-wa


On 10/25/2018 4:53 PM, Andrew Hain wrote:
> Embassies that extend over multiple sites or are neighbours (the
> embassies of Ecuador and Colombia in London are flats in a block of
> flats) don’t correspond to the normal meaning of the landuse tag.
>
> --
> Andrew
> ----
> *From:* Allan Mustard 
> *Sent:* 25 October 2018 02:25:07
> *To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)
>  
>
> I like Graeme's idea.  Round peg in round hole.  How would people feel
> about modifying the current Consulate proposal to encompass this?  Or
> should I leave the proposal for amenity=consulate as it is?
>
> On 10/25/2018 3:13 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> Just had a thought :-)
>>
>> Would this work under the landuse=government / civic_admin /
>> public_admin that was being discussed t'other day? 
>>
>> Maybe something like:
>>
>> landuse=government
>>
>> government=diplomatic (rendering with the current "embassy" flag)
>>
>> diplomatic=embassy / consulate etc
>>
>> services=visa; passport etc
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

Embassies and consulates are definitely government facilities/offices. 
Under the legal doctrine of extraterritoriality, the embassy or
consulate is considered to be located in the sending country for
purposes of legal jurisdiction.  Extraterritoriality is virtually
unlimited in the case of an embassy; it is more limited in the case of a
consulate but still exists.  Thus office=government,
government=[diplomatic, consular}, diplomatic=[embassy, high_commission,
nunciature, legation, interests_section, branch_embassy, liaison_office]
might be what we are looking for.

On 10/25/2018 2:24 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-25 06:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 11:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Err no.
>>
>> The 'government' is not 'foreign' but of federal/state/local
>> jurisdiction to that place.
>>
>> landuse=diplomatic???  
>>
>>  
>> Yes, but that patch of ground is owned by the "Australian" govt -
>> it's just that it's located in the US or where-ever! 
>>  
> For the avoidance of doubt, it is owned by the "Australian govt" in
> the same sense that I own my house (but it may also be rented or
> leased). It is not outside of the host country's jurisdiction, if
> that's what you were implying by "owned".
>  
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

Good point. Many embassies and consulates are an office in an office building, 
not an area. I represent them with a node in my mapping of Ashgabat (see the 
Embassy of Qatar in Ashgabat). Landuse is thus not a good solution, I fear.

There is also the issue of multiple sites for an embassy (in Ashgabat my 
embassy has four locations, two of which are offices in office buildings). I 
mapped those two as nodes and tagged amenity=embassy. Seems to work.

If there is no consensus yet on an alternative, for now I will leave the 
proposal as amenity=consulate since that matches amenity=embassy. We still have 
lots of time to consider alternatives, however! Any new ideas?

apm-wa

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 2:57 PM, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> if you known the "land scope" of a consulate,
> of course you may add it like we did sometime for school
> and thus all tag are only on one polygon.
> but landuse can't be the main tag, because if you have no idea about the 
> scope of a consulate, or if the consulate only have a level inside a 
> building, you can't add a landuse tag.
> which is why I think it's best to keep the two subjects separate.
> 
>> Le 25. 10. 18 à 03:25, Allan Mustard a écrit :
>> I like Graeme's idea. Round peg in round hole.  How would people feel 
>> about modifying the current Consulate proposal to encompass this?  Or 
>> should I leave the proposal for amenity=consulate as it is?
>> 
>>> On 10/25/2018 3:13 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>> Just had a thought :-)
>>> 
>>> Would this work under the landuse=government / civic_admin / 
>>> public_admin that was being discussed t'other day?
>>> 
>>> Maybe something like:
>>> 
>>> landuse=government
>>> 
>>> government=diplomatic (rendering with the current "embassy" flag)
>>> 
>>> diplomatic=embassy / consulate etc
>>> 
>>> services=visa; passport etc
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Graeme
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

I like Graeme's idea.  Round peg in round hole.  How would people feel
about modifying the current Consulate proposal to encompass this?  Or
should I leave the proposal for amenity=consulate as it is?

On 10/25/2018 3:13 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Just had a thought :-)
>
> Would this work under the landuse=government / civic_admin /
> public_admin that was being discussed t'other day? 
>
> Maybe something like:
>
> landuse=government
>
> government=diplomatic (rendering with the current "embassy" flag)
>
> diplomatic=embassy / consulate etc
>
> services=visa; passport etc
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

Well, at the moment the question as articulated in the wiki is whether
to split the existing amenity=embassy (which encompasses both embassies
and consulates) into amenity=embassy and amenity=consulate.  If in the
view of the OSM community amenity=consulate is inappropriate, then
logically so is amenity=embassy, and we need a new proposal to change
it.  I have no idea why amenity=embassy first came into existence. 
There is another proposal to create amenity=diplomatic and then use the
diplomatic=* tag to define more precisely what type of facility an
object is.  I have added it to the proposal wiki, but assume you would
not like it, either.

Paul, are you proposing office=diplomatic and diplomatic=[embassy,
mission, nunciature, consulate, consulate_general, consular agency,
honorary_consul], or something else?  I'll be happy to add your proposal
to the list of counterproposals on the wiki and promote discussion of it.

As for objection to the service=* tag, would a new consular:*=* tag be a
better solution?  Just asking.  I'm not well versed in programing
editors. It would be something like consular:immigrant_visas=yes,
consular:nonimmigrant_visas=yes, consular:citizen_services=yes, etc.

As for whether embassies serve "any purpose other than housing spies,"
as a diplomat now for over 30 years, I can assure you that at least in
the case of U.S. embassies, we diplomats do a lot more than that. 
Please take a look at the integrated country strategy of my embassy,
here: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/285262.pdf for a
taste of what a small U.S. embassy does.  The larger U.S. embassies do
much more.  I cannot speak for the embassies of other nations.

On 10/24/2018 8:52 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:19 PM Allan Mustard  <mailto:al...@mustard.net>> wrote:
>
> Please do continue to comment and to offer suggestions, and to
> pose questions.
>
>  This is pretty much based on gut feelings and may be partially or
> completely wrong...
>
> I don't think "amenity" is a suitable tag for a consulate.  Amenities
> are parks, or toilets, or similar.
> "Should we go to the park or the consulate for a picnic today?"   "I'm
> busting for a crap, where's the
> nearest consulate?"  And I'm damned sure an embassy isn't an amenity
> (I'm not even sure, in these
> days of telecommunications, if it serves any purpose other than
> housing spies, but if heads of state
> do still use embassies for formal communication between governments
> they're definitely not
> amenities).
>
> Embassies and consulates seem a slightly better fit in
> office=government, but still a square peg with
> the corners filed down a little trying to fit into a round hole.
>
> I'm not happy with service:*=* acting as distinctions as service is
> used elsewhere for other things.
> It complicates editors as they have to do selective matching to figure
> out which particular
> service:* tags to offer up with a particular main tag.  It is also
> less easy to comprehend at a
> glance.  I'd say diplomatic=* is a better way to go because it is more
> obvious and easier for
> editors.
>
> I don't know what the answer is, all I can say is I'm not overly happy
> with what has been
> suggested so far.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

I have updated both the proposal page and the discussion page (with
e-mailed comments) of


  Proposed features/Consulate

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Consulate

Please do continue to comment and to offer suggestions, and to pose
questions.  I am incorporating suggestions and one counterproposal into
the wiki page and look forward to reactions to them.  Many thanks to the
fellow mappers who have responded to this RFC!


Proposal

It is proposed to establish formally the amenity
=consulate

 tag,
which is already in use sporadically, in order to differentiate
consulates from embassies.

*Suggestions from Commenters*

  * To include an additional tag (e.g., service
=*) indicating
types of consular services (citizen services, non-immigrant visas,
immigrant visas, notarials, apostiles) offered. This tag could also
be used for embassies offering consular services.
  * To specify in such a tag types of services, e.g.,

service:apostiles=yes·   
service:immigrant_visas=yes·   
service:non-immigrant_visas=yes
service:notarials=yes

 This approach could be applied to avoid multiple values for the
same key, and are required because keys must be unique in OSM.

  * To use the tag diplomatic
=* to specify
the type of consulate (consulate general, consulate, consular
agency, honorary consul).

*Counterproposal*

Another user has counter-proposed (see the discussion page
):

I would opt for; depreciating amenity=embassy as they are used for
embassies, consulates etc so you don't know what they are (unless it
has a detailed sub tag) introducing amenity=diplomatic and use the
sub tag diplomatic=* to detail what it is - embassy/consulate/*



*
*



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

Nuncios are specifically named in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, as are envoys, ministers, and chargés d’affaires:

*Article 14*
1.Heads of mission are divided into three classes, namely:
(a) That of ambassadors or nuncios accredited to Heads of State, and other
heads of mission of
equivalent rank;
(b) That of envoys, ministers and internuncios accredited to Heads of State;
(c) That of chargés d’affaires accredited to Ministers for Foreign Affairs.

> Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:36:02 -0400 Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> The Holy See is sovereign, so its nunciatures are embassies by another
name.

>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Umm .. here is some sort of exception.
>>
>> "Apostolic Nunciature of The Holy See" ... :-)
>>
>> Ok .. what is it (in OSM terms)? Presently in the data base as
>> amenity=embassy
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

One of the commenters has suggested an additional tag indicating what
services a consulate or embassy provides, and that is one option.  Not
all consulates or consular sections of embassies offer all visa types,
for example.  The existent service=* tag could possibly be used.  For
example, one could add to either a consulate or an embassy the tag
service=[citizen services; notarials; apostiles; immigrant visas;
non-immigrant visas].  Thoughts?

> From: Colin Smale 

 > One further thought... There is also a big functional difference
between an embassy and a consulate. The former is more
government-oriented, whereas consulates provide services to
individual citizens. I know this is a big generalisation, but I hope
you will agree there is an important difference. BUT some embassies
also provide consular services, and some don't - they might direct
you to another address for your visa or whatever. If we tag
embassies and consulates distinctly, how do we add a secondary tag
to an embassy to indicate whether they do consular work or not?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

Colin Smale  wrote:
>
> The location of an embassy in the capital is surely not prescribed by
law, but by expedience isn't it? The ambassador wants/needs to be near
the action in order to carry out their primary role - interfacing with
the host country government.
Answer: Yes. The location of an embassy is typically negotiated with the
host country government and is indeed a matter of expedience in most
cases. 
>
> There are also examples of countries with split capitals. I am in one
now (Netherlands) - the capital is Amsterdam, but the embassies are in
The Hague, which is the seat of government but not the capital.
Answer: Yes, there are exceptions to every rule!  That's why defining an
embassy as the mission where one finds an ambassador is the easiest and
most reliable way of defining an embassy.  To the casual observer, an
embassy is a building with a sign on it that reads "Embassy" (as long as
it isn't a Embassy Suites Hotel or something similar) and a consulate is
a building with a sign containing the word "Consulate".
>
> Why is the location even relevant to this discussion, anyway?
Answer: Because in the OSM space there is confusion of embassies and
consulates.  A consulate is not an embassy, but in OSM the
amenity=embassy tag is applied to consulates.  I am proposing to correct
that, and to do that, mappers must understand both the differences
between an embassy and a consulate and how to differentiate between
them. Thanks for your help!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Allan Mustard]

Please continue to comment on this proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Consulate

I have posted comments received via the tagging mailing list to the
discussion page of this proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate

Please feel free to add comments either directly to the discussion page
or via the tagging mailing list.

Regarding Warin's comment,

> They did conform to the 'rule' of embassy/high commission only in the
capital.

There is a small number of highly visible exceptions to the rule of
embassies and of missions equivalent to embassies being located in the
capital.  The various missions of member states to the United Nations in
New York and Geneva as well as the missions to the WTO in Geneva come to
mind (these are all missions to a multilateral organization).
Fortunately most other such international organizations are located in
national capitals (OECD in Paris, NATO and the European Union in
Brussels, OSCE and some UN agencies in Vienna, other UN agencies in
Rome).  The easy way to determine if a mission is equivalent to an
embassy is to find out who is in charge of it, which can be learned by
Googling the mission's website.  Generally speaking, if the head of the
mission is an ambassador or charge d'affaires, the mission should be
tagged amenity=embassy.  If the "principal officer" bears a title with
the word "consul" in it, the amenity in question is a consulate.  The
obsolete head of mission titles "minister plenipotentiary" and "envoy
extraordinary" have fallen into disuse and I don't think it likely we
will encounter them.

I am tempted to add some text to the Key:amenity=embassy article
outlining exactly what an embassy is and how to recognize one, since an
embassy can be called different things (embassy, nunciature, mission,
legation, high commission, etc.) depending on who is sending it and to
whom it is accredited.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Consulate

Consular representation of a foreign country in a host country as
defined by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging