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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 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 thing).


I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent - not
> subject to guardianship by parenting.
>

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

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

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

[Dominic Coletti]

>
> 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 probate court or other courts (see Wikipedia
article)​


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 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 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 thing).
>
>
> I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent -
>> not subject to guardianship by parenting.
>>
>
> 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
>
> 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] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Dominic Coletti]

>
> 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 Public Affairs NCOIC, Raleigh-Wake
Composite Sqdn.

U.S. Air Force Auxiliary

gocivilairpatrol.com 






On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 whole building would be tagging a
> node on the building, along with nodes representing other offices or what
> have you within the building.
>
> Thanks for all of your feedback.
>
>
> shop=charity is not what you want! Please read the wiki?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcharity
>
> It says "selling a mixture of second hand goods, donated by the public. eg
> books, clothing, toys, furniture. May also sell some new products, eg
> confectionery, crafts."
>
> --
> +1 for the intention of the tag.
>
> -
> Trivial nit picking - this is not a rejection. Nor a compliant. Unlike
> some I would not reject a proposal due to the wording!
>
> "*Definition: A way to tag places where prospective parents can adopt
> children"*
>
> This should be the definition of what you want to tag...
>
> Better might be: "Definition: A place where prospective parent/s may adopt
> a child or children"
>
> And
> "*Applies to*
>
> *The proposed tag **office
> =adoption_agency
> **
> would be used on either: *
>
>-
> * nodes (in which case the node should be placed near the middle of the
>building in which the adoption agency is contained) *
>
> This assumes that the adoption agency occupies the whole thing. If the
> adoption agency only occupies a section of the building?
>
> Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the
> area occupied by the adoption agency)
>
> == children vs adult
> I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent -
> not subject to guardianship by parenting.  Again this is just a note - for
> information and consideration by those concerned.
>
> ___
> 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] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Dominic Coletti]

>
> 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 thing
> ​).
>
​The proposal does specify that areas can be used. In this case, they
should outline the area of the agency.​


> ​
>
>
[image: CAP Banner]




*C/TSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*Cadet Public Affairs NCOIC, Raleigh-Wake
Composite Sqdn.

U.S. Air Force Auxiliary

gocivilairpatrol.com 






On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 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 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 thing).
>
>
> I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent -
>> not subject to guardianship by parenting.
>>
>
> 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
>
> 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] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Dominic Coletti]

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, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:46 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> 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 the word "orphaned", unsure about "children", but
> maybe/likely agencies that bring children and adopters together are
> different to agencies that arrange adoptions for adults?
>
> I'd also remove the building =commercial constraint/suggestion. No need to
> be overly specific. Also, area=yes is not needed for buildings in general.
> IMHO this tag has nothing to do with buildings and at most the proposal
> should contain a link to the building key definition.
>
> +1 to the idea
>
> cheers
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-- 
Dominic Coletti
President & CEO
3Dreams Design
205 Anamoor Dr
Cary, NC 27513
(919) 463-9554

NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
strictly prohibited.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tom Pfeifer]

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 tagging prescribes in which building type the office
resides. It might occupy the whole building, it might be just a
room in a multistorey. The building might be residential, commercial,
school, church, anything.

> Also, you can add the "operator=*" tag (the city, state, any NGO...)

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.


tom

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

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

[Andy Townsend]

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 use with this value, just use it and map things near you.  
I'd also suggesting using taginfo* to find out what other mappers have 
mapped human "adoption" places as and suggesting to them that they might 
want to consider using your new value.


People can use any keys and values they like in OSM; they aren't 
restricted to "proposed" or "accepted" ones.


Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse)

* http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=adoption#values

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

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

[Warin]

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 whole building 
would be tagging a node on the building, along with nodes representing 
other offices or what have you within the building.


Thanks for all of your feedback.


shop=charity is not what you want! Please read the wiki?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcharity

It says "selling a mixture of second hand goods, donated by the public. 
eg books, clothing, toys, furniture. May also sell some new products, eg 
confectionery, crafts."


--
+1 for the intention of the tag.

-
Trivial nit picking - this is not a rejection. Nor a compliant. Unlike 
some I would not reject a proposal due to the wording!


"/Definition: A way to tag places where prospective parents can adopt 
children"//

/
This should be the definition of what you want to tag...

Better might be: "Definition: A place where prospective parent/s may 
adopt a child or children"


And
"/Applies to///

/The proposed tag //office 
=adoption_agency 
//would 
be used on either: /


//

 * /nodes (in which case the node should be placed near the middle of
   the building in which the adoption agency is contained)
   /

This assumes that the adoption agency occupies the whole thing. If the 
adoption agency only occupies a section of the building?


Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the 
area occupied by the adoption agency)


== children vs adult
I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent - 
not subject to guardianship by parenting.  Again this is just a note - 
for information and consideration by those concerned.


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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 the word "orphaned", unsure about "children", but maybe/likely 
agencies that bring children and adopters together are different to agencies 
that arrange adoptions for adults? 

I'd also remove the building =commercial constraint/suggestion. No need to be 
overly specific. Also, area=yes is not needed for buildings in general. IMHO 
this tag has nothing to do with buildings and at most the proposal should 
contain a link to the building key definition.

+1 to the idea

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