Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

sent from a phone > On 11. Apr 2018, at 07:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Are they under the military or under the civilian government? > > How does OSM separate out other government/military departments? some are military, some are governmental, and some seem to be sth on

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

Are they under the military or under the civilian government? How does OSM separate out other government/military departments? Use the same method for these. Why does an 'Intelligence facility' require different tagging? On 11/04/18 13:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 11 April 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On 11 April 2018 at 09:05, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Have a look here for one of the most prominent examples: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186025617 >> names in 7 languages, but

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > I suppose you could mark the publicly-known buildings, such as the MI6 > Ziggurat in London, or the CIA at Langley etc, but pretty hard to use > anywhere else? > The ones I can think of in the UK with

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

I admit there is a less serious component in this proposal, in that every embassy, potentially, eventually, has to do with intelligence, and obviously, secret installations are not known, unless you know about them, usually for professional reasons, in which case you would put yourself under

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On 11 April 2018 at 08:08, Paul Allen wrote: > > The ordinary ones are hard enough to verify. > > I suppose you could mark the publicly-known buildings, such as the MI6 Ziggurat in London, or the CIA at Langley etc, but pretty hard to use anywhere else? Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How could they be verified? > > The ordinary ones are hard enough to verify. The ones tagged intelligence_facility=secret are even harder. I'm not convinced this is a sensible idea. -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On 11/04/18 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I have worked on my proposal for tagging intelligence facilities and am asking for your comments. They 'don't exist'.  No 'embassy' will admit to them. Grigory Logvinov  Russian Diplomat in Australia responding to questions about expulsions of