On 2018-10-23 15:57, Allan Mustard wrote:
> Regarding Warin's comment,
>
>> They did conform to the 'rule' of embassy/high commission only in the
>> capital.
>
> There is a small number of highly visible exceptions to the rule of embassies
> and of missions equivalent to embassies being located in the capital. The
> various missions of member states to the United Nations in New York and
> Geneva as well as the missions to the WTO in Geneva come to mind (these are
> all missions to a multilateral organization). Fortunately most other such
> international organizations are located in national capitals (OECD in Paris,
> NATO and the European Union in Brussels, OSCE and some UN agencies in Vienna,
> other UN agencies in Rome). The easy way to determine if a mission is
> equivalent to an embassy is to find out who is in charge of it, which can be
> learned by Googling the mission's website. Generally speaking, if the head
> of the mission is an ambassador or charge d'affaires, the mission should be
> tagged amenity=embassy. If the "principal officer" bears a title with the
> word "consul" in it, the amenity in question is a consulate. The obsolete
> head of mission
titles "minister plenipotentiary" and "envoy extraordinary" have fallen into
disuse and I don't think it likely we will encounter them.
The location of an embassy in the capital is surely not prescribed by
law, but by expedience isn't it? The ambassador wants/needs to be near
the action in order to carry out their primary role - interfacing with
the host country government.
There are also examples of countries with split capitals. I am in one
now (Netherlands) - the capital is Amsterdam, but the embassies are in
The Hague, which is the seat of government but not the capital.
Why is the location even relevant to this discussion, anyway?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
