Proposal talk:Embassy

Comments

• I'd certainly support amenity=embassy as I am using it already. I'd suggest perhaps simplyfing rendering by using a simple blank waving flag for all countries? I'm using name="Embassy of the United States" tags to identify them. I'd also suggest defining the key to include both embassies and consulates to make in most useful. Though Embassies and Consular premises are treated separately under the Vienna Convention, I'd suggest most people go to either for consulate services and that for mapping icons it is sufficient to treat them as the same. FYI, my wife is a diplomat. MikeCollinson 21:04, 22 April 2007 (BST)

Certainly, renderers could use a generic little flag if they didn't want to have 200 little flags :). If we include consulates, I'd rather see a tag of some sort distinguishing these from embassies, as well. Morwen 18:37, 27 April 2007 (BST)

Proposal: Boxed C:<CountryCode> for consulates and E:<CountryCode> for embassies Frank 19:10, 27 April 2007 (BST)

It doesn't feel like an 'amenity' to me. tourism=embassy feels a little better, but not perfect. Frankie Roberto 21:50, 22 July 2007 (BST)

How about amenity=embassy for embassies and amenity=consulate for consulates? Andrewpmk 18:03, 1 September 2007 (BST)

I agree with Andrew suggestion (amenity=embassy for embassies and amenity=consulate) and with the idea of a generic flag for all of them. The name tag should be sufficient to identify them. flipo , 7 October 2007 (BST)

I agree with Andrewpmk proposal Lucadelu 20.18, 9 February 2008

What about amenity=diplomatic and diplomatic=embassy or diplomatic=consulate (or diplomatic=honorary for honorary consulates). Something would then have to be done with embassies without consular functions, perhaps diplomatic=embassy:no_consulate? Gustavf 17:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gustavf but suggest diplomatic=permanent_mission for permanent missions. Bollin 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gustavf and Bollin. However I don't think we should need an amenity=diplomatic tag. We can get by with just diplomatic=embassy. The advantage is that anything tagged diplomatic=* can be rendered as a generic flag, much like how all building=* tags are rendered the same, but the mapper is free to specify more detail, or just leave it as building=yes.

That sounds reasonable. --Bollin 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the key "diplomatic" is unnecessary and will just confuse mappers (because most things are "amenity"). I regularly enter "amenity=supermarket" by mistake instead of "shop=supermarket". Are there really enough diplomatic-related things to bother creating a new category? Amenity is fine, after all this data is really intended to be read by computers. Andrewpmk 08:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't say it will confuse mappers since there are not too mutch embassys around. Just a few hundred in Europe I think. So they don't need to be tagged very often and would be easiely change mistakes or different approches by script. I would vote for diplomatic=embassy/consultate/etc. I think thats the easiest way for renderers and humans. And by the way I really like the Idea of the little Flags! (Please check out: [1]) However, in the end thats a matter to the renderers but it would be very cool to have the little flag, in case of you don't know the foreing spelling of a county and also you can see at first glace where are the embassys without reading (About me: In my quarter there are a lot of embassys around, I have bussines in one embassy 2 or 3 times a week and I also mapped some, so I know what you feel when you add them. --TheTimetraveler 19:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic doesn't sound useful as a top level tag to me. What else would fall into this group? I would never guess diplomatic=embassy, but I would guess amenity=embassy. Chillly 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

'diplomatic' could mean any sort of government thing that's not for the country it's in. Other possible values could be diplomatic=consulate, diplomatic=border_control. Rorym 11:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think diplomatic applies to border controls. They are amenities to me, they're not part of a diplomatic function. I can't see diplomatic being properly used beyond embassies and consulates (even that is debatable since consuls are often not diplomats). It just makes more sense, and much simpler, to stick to amenity=embassy. Chillly 15:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

'Diplomatic' definitely does not apply to border controls. Border posts are not staffed by diplomats or consuls, but rather by military, security, or customs officials. Apm-wa (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It could be that diplomatic is not the right key, and something that would be able to cover any node, way or area that has something to do with international relations would probably be the best. Any ideas? Gustavf 20:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

amenity=diplomatic ?? That avoids having a new key and "solves" the issue of embassies versus consulates versus chanceries versus ... . I would support that but still prefer amenity=embassy as being simple and easy to remember. The exact function can be captured in the name=* and description=* tags in both cases. MikeCollinson 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This should rather be amenity=diplomatic and type=embassy/consulate/general consulate as the three functions are similar but have different status, and there is a difference in services. Another tag should be added to identify the diplomatic connection, for instance nation=*. This should also be referred to either a node or an area. --Skippern 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why a general term "type" (type of what?), what's wrong with "diplomatic"? Proposal already proposes country=* for the originating country. The only strange this is that there are only 9 embassies in the Europe, even when this proposal is over 20 months old. Alv 18:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, maybe "type" was a bad tag, diplomatic=* might work as well for that, and whether it is "country" or "nation" makes no difference as long as we choose a uniform standard. The question might rather be if we are going to use ISO codes or names as the value. I would prefere ISO codes as that would enable I18N support, though I guess most people are inclined to use a free text string. Do we want bots to search over and correct this to the right ISO code? Or are we going to enforce ISO codes? The number of embassies put in at the moment is irrelevant to the tagging standard we choose. I myself have still not mapped close to a diplomatic station. --Skippern 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Consulates versus embassies

Consulates are not embassies and vice versa, so tagging a consulate as an embassy adds confusion, not clarity, to the map. Amenity=consulate is already in use and could easily be standardized. After that, if further definition/granularity is needed, the diplomatic=* (also already in use) can be applied. BTW under international law a consulate is not a diplomatic mission, so equating a consulate to an embassy is erroneous. Apm-wa (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

keep it simple

This is to me: Building=yes, amenity=public_building, public_building=embassy (or consulate or whatever). --Lulu-Ann 14:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We got loads of honorary consulates in Thessaloniki

So I use diplomatic=honorary? We got a huge load of honorary consulates in our city Thessaloniki, the 2nd largest city of Greece. I want to map these. Just by surveying today I noticed two honorary consulates. One the Serbian honorary consulate and the other is a Russian Federation honorary consulate. logictheo 21:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

amenity?

Why not office=embassy?
Or office=government + <some_subkey>=embassy, as an embassy always belongs to some government. --Fkv 22:48, 29 September 2012 (BST)