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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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