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
