On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Bryan Housel <bhou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Per Paul Allen’s suggestion, mappers can continue use `covered=yes` for > telephones with a hood. > Would it be better to abuse booth rather than covered and have booth=hood? That way covered can be dropped entirely for use with phones. It also accords with the Wikipedia article that uses the term booth both for things I'd call booths and things I'd call hoods. > Opened https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging/issues/8 to track next > actions for this. > > "Consensus on list is that covered=booth offers no additional information > over booth=* and conflicts with existing semantics for covered=yes/no. > > We'll replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes and add a > booth=yes to any features that don't already have a booth tag.” > Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with no hood, no booth, and no cover, so adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error. And somebody else posted a pic of phones with hoods that were under a roof on pillars, which might be tagged with covered=yes on the phone rather than within building=roof. I'd say replace covered=booth with booth=yes if no booth=* is already specified; remove covered=* if booth=* is specified. I think that going further than that makes unsafe assumptions. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
