I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original proposal of keeping amenity=embassy and adding amenity=consulate. So I believe your first summary is inaccurate.
Instead what I have seen is suggesting that amenity=diplomatic is possibly a better fit than office=diplomatic. So I would suggest dropping the first alternative entirely and modifying the second to read: * shift to amenity=diplomatic or office=diplomatic (which one to use has yet to be decided) and use the existing diplomatic=* additional (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use embassy, consulate, and other (or some other euphemism as yet undetermined) as additional (tertiary) tags to specify further the type of diplomatic or non-diplomatic mission as needed. Cheers, John On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:14 AM Allan Mustard <al...@mustard.net> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Eleven days into the RFC, we have three competing lines of thought > regarding even a primary tag for diplomatic missions, and similarly little > consensus on additional (secondary and tertiary) tags that would preserve > and expand information. The three lines of thought are: > > * retain amenity=* as the primary tag but tag consulates separately from > embassies (this is the original proposal, which after being criticized > resurfaced a few days ago). > > * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional > (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use > embassy, consulate and other as additional (tertiary) tags to specify > further the type of diplomatic or non-diplomatic mission as needed. > > * "promote" diplomatic=* to primary tag status, with embassy, consulate, > and other (or some other euphemism as yet undetermined) as the key values > as well as additional (secondary) tags that are used to specify further the > type of diplomatic or non-diplomatic mission as needed. > > Nearly all the discussion is posted to the talk page of Proposed > Features/Consulate in the wiki , > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Consulate for > those interested in reviewing it. > > Now, as we approach the two-week mark, it would be helpful to get a sense > of whether there is any consensus out there about which of the three main > lines of thought is preferred over the others. The preferences of the > community responding to this RFC are not clear to me. Please let me know > which direction you believe would be best, bearing in mind both the > realities of the OSM universe (relative sophistication of mappers, the > desire not to burden unduly renderers of maps, and the degree to which > anybody reads the wiki articles) and our shared desire to make OSM as > accurate and information-rich as possible. Which of the above approaches > do you think is "best" by those criteria? > > Very best regards to one and all who have contributed to this discussion, > and many thanks for your ideas and expressions of concern. > > apm-wa > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
