First of all, big thanks to all discussants who have pitched ideas and asked probing questions--I think we are moving toward a more elegant solution than what I originally proposed.
As of 28 October 2018, one week into the RFC, here is where I think we are (stay tuned for further developments, film at 11): a) consulates are not embassies; b) neither embassies nor consulates are amenities; c) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is a trend toward thinking office=diplomatic is suboptimal and diplomatic=* needs to be elevated to primary tag status; d) diplomatic=* would include only [embassy, consulate, other], with "other" covering anomalies without status under the VCDR or VCCR (e.g., AIT, TECRO, and subnational representations); e) further refining of the type of facility would be apparent in the name=* tag, obviating the need for additional subtags; and f) diplomatic:services:[non-immigrant visas, immigrant visas, citizen services]=[yes/no] tags would be desirable. I have two questions: 1) Should I withdraw the current amenity=consulate proposal and submit a new one based on the above (no harm to my ego involved; I am not emotionally tied to the original proposal), or 2) Modify the current proposal to fit the above with an eye to a vote on or about November 4? Or is this premature and should I allow discussion on the current proposal to continue? In any event please note that I have been posting most e-mail responses to the Talk:Proposed features/Consulate page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate so the record of our discussion will be preserved. I have also added some counterproposals and suggestion modifications to the main proposal page. Many thanks to one and all again, cheers, apm-wa
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging