Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

2015-12-01 5:18 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the > area occupied by the adoption agency) you can also use an area instead of the node. An area has certain advantages (says something about the size, can contain

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

> > it is not about legal dependency or guardianship, but rather about titles > and inheritance rights. Wikipedia has a short article on it: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_adoption > ​That is correct, but note that there are no adoption agencies for adults, it is predominately handled in

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

> > Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the > area occupied by the adoption agency) > ​Better might be: "Definition: A place where prospective parent/s may adopt > a child or children" > ​​ Both fixed.​ [image: CAP Banner] *C/TSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*Cadet

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

> > you can also use an area instead of the node. An area has certain > advantages (says something about the size, can contain further objects like > areas and nodes) and some disadvantages (more work to draw, more complex to > edit) and requires more information (an idea about the extent of the

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

The "orphaned" has been removed, but I feel as if adult adoptions are typcially not handled through an agency and therefore the "children"is fine as is. I also feel as if the tag is similar to the tag office=realtor or similar. I feel as if the building=* tag is acceptable because of this. On Mon,

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

Alberto Chung wrote on 2015/11/30 22:51: Hi, nice proposal, but i think you can improve some tags, like > "The adoption agency proposal would be tagged building=commercial.", > i guess is better use "building=civic". No, as said before, remove it completely. There is no need that the office

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

On 30/11/2015 22:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Yes. Anyway, the proposal is a bit complicated for a simple thing as the value of an office key. Nobody objected. From my perspective, just document it and use it. That makes sense to me. Don't try and overthink what keys other mappers might want to

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

On 1/12/2015 12:05 PM, Dominic Coletti wrote: I appreciate the feedback and was able to check out the Taginfo. One solution I saw was shop=charity. One thing that could be used is shop=charity and type=adoption_agency or something similar. The problem of the office (or shop) tag describing the

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

sent from a phone > Am 30.11.2015 um 01:50 schrieb Dominic Coletti : > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tag:adoption_agency > This proposal serves as a way to tag places where prospective parents can > adopt orphaned children I would remove