Mar 16, 2019, 3:53 PM by [email protected]:

> Am Sa., 16. März 2019 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <> 
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >:
>
>> > On 16. Mar 2019, at 13:11, Jan S <>> [email protected] 
>> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> > wrote:
>>  > 
>>  > All other police facilites, that may currently have been tagged 
>> erroneously as amenity=police would be tagged only as police=*,
>>  
>>  
>>  The „problem“ with this approach is that maps who base the presence of 
>> objects in their renderings on the presence of specific keys will likely not 
>> happen to find these police=* things in their database. Depending on how 
>> relevant the objects are for the specific map, this may be desirable or not. 
>> Just as a point of consideration. Of course in theory who defines the 
>> filtering rules for the keys might add „police“, but in practice it takes a 
>> lot of time to establish a new key as standard.
>>  
>>
> Sure, but currently amenity=police is used indiscriminately on many 
> police-related objects, no matter whether they are important or providing 
> background services. There are several instances of police barracks or 
> warehouses mapped as amenity=police, although they clearly don't provide 
> service to the public. So you basically can't rely on OSM to find a police 
> station in case of an emergency. I think that's worse than maybe losing some 
> other police facilities from certain maps.
>
Some police facilities will remain mistagged, no matter tagging scheme.

Have you already fixed such objects or opened OSM notes mentioning mistaggings?

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to