Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Dave Swarthout]

@Matthijs,

I like what you've done so far. I think using office=government and then
following that additional tags to more closely define what sort of
administration is done by that office is a good way to proceed.

I would suggest a minor change to the definition you have above by
including a reference to facilities. These might include water and
irrigation projects, government controlled utilities and the like.

The tag office=government is used to tag offices of a
(supra)national, regional or local government agency or department. In
these offices, staff work directly for government and carry out
tasks to administer facilities, operate registries and licensing bureaus,
regulate lands and/or people, etc."

Something like that maybe?
 This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com 
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Matthijs Melissen 
wrote:

> On 27 January 2016 at 15:03, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> > 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
> > an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
> > normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
> > people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
> > put him in prison" too.
>
> Good point, I added an additional tag to clarify that all branches are
> included.
>
> > For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
> > delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
> > definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
> > cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
> > controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
> > amenity=public_building.
>
> True, coming up with a precise definition is quite hard though. I
> think I would like to include places like job centres, but exclude
> museum cashiers or private bus/road work companies. Would something
> like this work?
>
> "The tag office=government is used to tag offices of a
> (supra)national, regional or local government agency or department. In
> these offices, staff directly paid for by the government carry out
> administrative jobs to govern the area and/or people."
>
> Could somebody (perhaps a native speaker) improve on this definition?
>
> -- Matthijs
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 15:03, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
> an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
> normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
> people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
> put him in prison" too.

Good point, I added an additional tag to clarify that all branches are included.

> For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
> delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
> definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
> cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
> controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
> amenity=public_building.

True, coming up with a precise definition is quite hard though. I
think I would like to include places like job centres, but exclude
museum cashiers or private bus/road work companies. Would something
like this work?

"The tag office=government is used to tag offices of a
(supra)national, regional or local government agency or department. In
these offices, staff directly paid for by the government carry out
administrative jobs to govern the area and/or people."

Could somebody (perhaps a native speaker) improve on this definition?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 14:40, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> I have no idea why you have included:
>
> amenity=register_office (1044 instances)
> office=administrative (8807 instances)
> office=register (137 instances)
> office=tax (354 instances)
>
> on that page, without any suggested detailed tagging.  Information will be
> lost if people change e.g. "register offices" to be merely "government
> office".

There is new tagging in the proposal. It is, respectively:
- office=government, government=register_office
- office=government (with correct admin level)
- office=government, government=register_office
- office=government, government=tax

> As an aside, when I looked at "office" use in the UK a month or so ago while
> trying to work out what to render as what, I came up with this list:
>
> https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1421
>
> Obviously that's a much wider net than you're looking at here, but there are
> some synonyms in there you might want to think about.

Thanks. I think the proposal takes some of these values into account
already. I don't think the others necessarily need to be included in
the currrent proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-28 12:43 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale :

> Sounds like there are formally two distinct bodies in Paris which share
> buildings and staff.



calling them distinct is a bit of a stretch, given that location and people
are the same. There one "thing" that does cover both admin levels. They
might act in different roles and according to different rules, but they are
the same "thing". That's exactly what I had in mind when speaking about
entities covering more than one admin level.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 27 January 2016 at 15:03, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> 1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
> an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
> normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
> people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
> put him in prison" too.

Isn't the division of powers theory referred to as 'three branches of
government'? That seems to indicate that government can encompass the
legislative power as well.

Also, note that on local level, the branches are much more mingled,
and usually share a single building (the city council usually meets in
the building where the mayor/aldermen work).

> For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
> delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
> definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
> cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
> controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
> amenity=public_building.

Good point. Do you, or anybody else, have a better definition? I think
I'd prefer the job center to be included, but the museum to be
excluded.

> 2. At the same time, governments all over the world are vastly
> different; in some places, for example, the water works will be closely
> guarded government institutions, and in others, private enterprises in
> competition to each other. Same with railways and many other utilities
> which, at least in socialist countries, tend to be practically
> inseparable from government (except that it will be bloody difficult to
> assign an admin_level to them). I think that it is very likely that
> you'll end up with a vastly varying use of this tag across the world,
> with many values limited in use to a single country plus a few uses
> sprinkled across the world because nobody understood that a certain type
> of office really only exists in three Philippine provinces.

True, but I don't think that's really a problem. If the reality is
different in across countries, we can expect the tagging to differ as
well. I think the wiki page should provide some international
guidelines, but in the end each national community can decide how to
implement them (similarly to how each country decides what counts as a
trunk road).

> 3. Personally I feel that in addition to the above, there's a major
> difference between places where the government provides a service to the
> citizen - where you go to do something or have something done - and
> other places where the government essentially revolves in its own sauce
> and you're not even let in to watch. The former is an useful "this is
> where you go if you need to " information, the latter is essentially
> just for fancy lettering on the map because you won't usually go there
> for anything. Much like the difference between a Domino's pizza place
> and the Domino's central franchise building. I think that it might make
> sense to find different tags for the government "outlets" or "serivce
> points" as opposed to government office buildings.

Good point as well. However, note that this differs a lot between
countries as well. For example, in some countries, if you have a tax
question, you can just walk in to the tax office, where'll you be
redirected to the tax inspector that will actually handle your tax
forms. In other countries, you can only reach the tax office by phone
or mail. There are also many forms in between places where you can
just walk in, and places that are closely guarded. For example,
ministry buildings are generally relatively closed off, but sometimes
you might need to go there to get certain documents. For instance, in
Luxembourg you can register your diplomas in person at the higher
education ministry. An other example, you would not usually go to the
city's traffic department are usually, but you might need to go there
if you need signs to close of a parking space.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Colin Smale]

I didn't have any "concerns", I was looking for clarity about what was
meant by an "institution" given that a "city hall" was cited as an
example... 

Sounds like there are formally two distinct bodies in Paris which share
buildings and staff. The fact that a given council meeting is either one
thing or the other is a big clue: 

"Although Paris has a double role as a _commune_ and as a _département_,
it has a unique method for governing both; the Council of Paris, with
the Mayor of Paris as its president, meets either as a municipal council
(_conseil municipal_) or as a departmental council (_conseil général_)
depending on the issue to be debated." 

>From the website of the Mairie: 

"LES CONSEILLERS DE PARIS siègent à la fois au Conseil d'arrondissement
dont ils sont élus et au Conseil de Paris où ils ont une double fonction
: ils sont à la fois conseillers municipaux et conseillers
départementaux." 

//colin 

On 2016-01-28 12:16, althio wrote:

> Colin,
> 
> Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Paris
> and tell me if it answers your questions and if I understood your concerns.
> 
> - althio
> 
> On 28 January 2016 at 12:10, Colin Smale  wrote: 
> 
>> What do you mean with "institution"? Is that a single building housing
>> multiple organisations, or is it a single organisation fulfilling multiple
>> constitutional roles? A "City Hall" sounds like a building.
>> 
>> Organisations sharing a building probably happens quite a lot, but I would
>> expect that governments are wary of combining multiple distinct admin levels
>> into a single organisation where the admin levels actually exist.
>> 
>> --colin
>> 
>> On 2016-01-28 11:58, althio wrote:
>> 
>> On 28 January 2016 at 11:47, Matthijs Melissen 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Only problem: if an institution
>> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only
>> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different
>> from "government:level=state;local".
>> 
>> Do you have an example of an institution serving multiple admin levels?
>> 
>> Maybe Paris city hall would fit the description, serving admin_level=6-8:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/71525
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1641193
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7444
>> and http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/284089
>> 
>> ___
>> 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 - Government offices

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-27 21:38 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> government:level=federal,state,local ?
> OR
>
> This could also be operator tag = federal_government, etc ... that would
> be more consistent?
>
> OR
> use admin_level tag from the boundaries tag
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#admin_level
>


yes, as we already have them, the admin_levels seem great to add this
information this way (it will provide the detail relative to the rest of
the map data, i.e. administrative entities). Only problem: if an
institution serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by
using only the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no
different from "government:level=state;local". We might even consider using
relations for this, so the area that is served can become member of the
object and the role could tell what the connection is.

I agree with Frederik about the separation of powers and the usage of the
term government (it seems in some countries this distinction is less
prominent and "government" serves as a collector for all kind of official
public powers). For reference, a similar discussion was held here:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022449.html
an particular from here on:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-March/022509.html


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[althio]

On 28 January 2016 at 11:47, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>> Only problem: if an institution
>> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only
>> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different
>> from "government:level=state;local".
>
> Do you have an example of an institution serving multiple admin levels?

Maybe Paris city hall would fit the description, serving admin_level=6-8:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/71525
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1641193
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7444
and http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/284089

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Colin Smale]

What do you mean with "institution"? Is that a single building housing
multiple organisations, or is it a single organisation fulfilling
multiple constitutional roles? A "City Hall" sounds like a building.

Organisations sharing a building probably happens quite a lot, but I
would expect that governments are wary of combining multiple distinct
admin levels into a single organisation where the admin levels actually
exist. 

--colin 

On 2016-01-28 11:58, althio wrote:

> On 28 January 2016 at 11:47, Matthijs Melissen  
> wrote: On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>  wrote: Only problem: if an institution
> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only
> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different
> from "government:level=state;local". 
> Do you have an example of an institution serving multiple admin levels?

Maybe Paris city hall would fit the description, serving
admin_level=6-8:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/71525
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1641193
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7444
and http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/284089

___
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 - Government offices

[althio]

Colin,

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Paris
and tell me if it answers your questions and if I understood your concerns.

- althio

On 28 January 2016 at 12:10, Colin Smale  wrote:
> What do you mean with "institution"? Is that a single building housing
> multiple organisations, or is it a single organisation fulfilling multiple
> constitutional roles? A "City Hall" sounds like a building.
>
>
>
> Organisations sharing a building probably happens quite a lot, but I would
> expect that governments are wary of combining multiple distinct admin levels
> into a single organisation where the admin levels actually exist.
>
> --colin
>
> On 2016-01-28 11:58, althio wrote:
>
> On 28 January 2016 at 11:47, Matthijs Melissen 
> wrote:
>
> On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
> Only problem: if an institution
> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only
> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different
> from "government:level=state;local".
>
>
> Do you have an example of an institution serving multiple admin levels?
>
>
> Maybe Paris city hall would fit the description, serving admin_level=6-8:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/71525
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1641193
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7444
> and http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/284089
>
> ___
> 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 - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 28 January 2016 at 11:43, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Only problem: if an institution
> serves several levels we will either loose information (e.g. by using only
> the highest level) or deal with multiple values (but that's no different
> from "government:level=state;local".

Do you have an example of an institution serving multiple admin levels?

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01/27/16 14:26, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> This didn't get any responses yet on the list. II would be interested
> to hear what other mappers think of this proposal!

1. In many western civilizations you have a division of state powers in
an executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. I believe that you'd
normally only call the executive "government", although colloquially
people will say "the government has passed a law" or "the government has
put him in prison" too.

For a government=* tag to succeed, it would have to be clearly
delineated for what kinds of things it is to be used. The proposed
definition is already murky; for example, a job centre or even a museum
cashier could be "fully paid for by the government and completely
controlled by them". This is not any better defined than
amenity=public_building.

2. At the same time, governments all over the world are vastly
different; in some places, for example, the water works will be closely
guarded government institutions, and in others, private enterprises in
competition to each other. Same with railways and many other utilities
which, at least in socialist countries, tend to be practically
inseparable from government (except that it will be bloody difficult to
assign an admin_level to them). I think that it is very likely that
you'll end up with a vastly varying use of this tag across the world,
with many values limited in use to a single country plus a few uses
sprinkled across the world because nobody understood that a certain type
of office really only exists in three Philippine provinces.

3. Personally I feel that in addition to the above, there's a major
difference between places where the government provides a service to the
citizen - where you go to do something or have something done - and
other places where the government essentially revolves in its own sauce
and you're not even let in to watch. The former is an useful "this is
where you go if you need to " information, the latter is essentially
just for fancy lettering on the map because you won't usually go there
for anything. Much like the difference between a Domino's pizza place
and the Domino's central franchise building. I think that it might make
sense to find different tags for the government "outlets" or "serivce
points" as opposed to government office buildings.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

This didn't get any responses yet on the list. II would be interested
to hear what other mappers think of this proposal!

-- Matthijs

On 26 January 2016 at 00:13, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a proposal to use the tag office=government for the
> tagging of government offices. The proposal also replaces/discourages
> a number of tags, amongst which is amenity=public_building.
>
> The proposal can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> -- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/01/2016 13:26, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

This didn't get any responses yet on the list. II would be interested
to hear what other mappers think of this proposal!

-- Matthijs

On 26 January 2016 at 00:13, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:

Hi all,

I have created a proposal to use the tag office=government for the
tagging of government offices. The proposal also replaces/discourages
a number of tags, amongst which is amenity=public_building.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

Please let me know what you think.



I'm not convinced that a wiki page that perpetuates the myth that OSM 
deprecates tags (except in very unusual cases such as highway=byway and 
highway=ford on ways, where the nature of the feature is obscured by 
what should be an attribute) is a good idea. "Discouraging the use of" 
amenity=public_building makes sense though, for the reasons already 
discussed - I couldn't make much sense of its usage when I looked at it 
in the UK.


I have no idea why you have included:

amenity=register_office (1044 instances)
office=administrative (8807 instances)
office=register (137 instances)
office=tax (354 instances)

on that page, without any suggested detailed tagging.  Information will 
be lost if people change e.g. "register offices" to be merely 
"government office".


As an aside, when I looked at "office" use in the UK a month or so ago 
while trying to work out what to render as what, I came up with this list:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1421

Obviously that's a much wider net than you're looking at here, but there 
are some synonyms in there you might want to think about.


Cheers,

Andy


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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

I have created a proposal to use the tag office=government for the
tagging of government offices. The proposal also replaces/discourages
a number of tags, amongst which is amenity=public_building.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

Please let me know what you think.

-- Matthijs

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