Talk:Tag:amenity=embassy

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestion about alt_name

I'm curious to hear what people might have to say to the following proposal: Official names of embassies and diplomatic missions can be lengthy and difficult (like Consulate General of the Islamic Republic of Iran). I would suspect that people usually don't type exactly that expression when they do a search on the map. So my suggestion is this: Let's keep the original official name intact, but add alt_name=* with a somewhat more "manageable" name like Iranian Embassy. This is something people will most like search for. By using both name=* and alt_name=* one can keep the official name (and have it displayed on the map!) and still provide a more practical option for database searches. Search for "German embassy London" to get an example. What do you think?

(PS: I am aware of the key official_name=* but that one doesn't show on the map. So it's really not much use in this case.) --Jotam (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Type of diplomatic mission

Can somebody add how to tag different levels of diplomatic stations? What about consules, general consules? For me living as a stranger, in a different country than my nationality, diplomatic stations might be important for me, and since I am working all over the world, I might need to apply for visas on different diplomatic stations. --Skippern 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

i think there are indeed 3 levels we need to define - embassy - consulate-general - consulate

How about embassy=* set to consulate or consulate-general ? Or moving out of the amenity-tag altogether: office=diplomatic and diplomatic=consulate|consulate-general|embassy ?--Gorm 19:45, 24 October 2010 (BST)
I agree that we should urgently make these levels 'taggable'. I think that by far the best option is to create a whole new thing, that is, diplomatic=*. This is interesting because diplomacy may involve much more than only embassies (i.e. visas, diplomatic immunity - somehow that may be 'taggable', I don't know), and in certain situations may even become blurred with other tags, so we may even have a diplomatic=yes. You know when we sit all comfy in our developed countries we forget that there are countries in total chaos and calamity where diplomatic entities may be the only functioning bodies there.
Check out diplomatic=* on this topic. --Jotam (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The office=diplomatic is 'correct', since it is indeed an administrative entity. But it's just not "worthy" enough to have embassies, etc. within it's categorization. --D4RK-L3G10N 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

some tagging for the service would also be good (visa, passport..) --Rubke 19:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

How about services=visa;passport;refuge;ticket_home ? --Gorm 19:45, 24 October 2010 (BST)
Good idea. Not all consulates offer all services. Apm-wa (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as a diplomat with over 30 years of experience working in one consulate and multiple embassies, consulates should be differentiated from embassies and should not be tagged amenity=embassy. Since they are governed by two separate international treaties (the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations), IMHO it would make sense to tag as follows:

* Embassies (including bilateral embassies and nunciatures plus multilateral missions headed by a "chief of mission" or "head of mission", such as missions to the United Nations and such): amenity=embassy
* Consulates (including consulates general, consular agencies, consular offices, and plain old ordinary consulates): amenity=consulate

To these tags can be added additional tags, such as diplomatic=* (embassy, nunciature, mission, legation, consulate, consulate general, etc.) to define them further. For example, the Apostolic Nunciature in Ashgabat would be tagged amenity=embassy, diplomatic=nunciature; the Russian consular office in Turkmenbashy would be tagged amenity=consulate, diplomatic=consular office (since it is not a full fledged consulate). This would avoid overly complication the database at the level used by most mapping apps but would allow for refinement that would make searching the database (e.g., looking for all honorary consuls) relatively easier. Apm-wa (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is the nation named?

Why is it "... in Finland" - This is a map, it is totally clear in which nation the embassy is...! --Lulu-Ann 16:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is what the entity calls itself, thats fine. But no need to add it artificially. --Gorm 19:45, 24 October 2010 (BST)
I agree. Instead of adding on to the official name of the embassy, consider using target=*. -- Jotam (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Embassies to the Vatican are in a different country - they are located in Rome, Italy (Vatican is far too small to house all the embassies). Embassies to Italy will also be in Rome, but they will be distinct from the embassies to SCV. --Csmale (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Deprecation not propagated to other language

I propagated it in french. Tuxayo (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Document deprecation in deprecated features

«The reason is documented in Deprecated features.»

But it's missing.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features


Tuxayo (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

also there is no deprecation visible in the data. According to the approved proposal for office=diplomatic the deprecation for amenity=embassy was intended to occur over time. I have therefore changed the deprecation box and reworded it. —Dieterdreist (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dieterdriest, don't you think your revised wording all but encourages mappers to continue to use amenity=embassy and not to deprecate it? I think this wording undermines the intent of the approved change...can you possibly come up with something a little stronger to deprecate amenity=embassy? Over time, yes, but forever, no, please! Apm-wa (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused, I updated the tags of 3 consulates but now I don't know if I have to keep amenity=embassy + subtags
The only reference we have is that, right? «deprecate the amenity=embassy tag over a period of time.» https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/office%3Ddiplomatic
Tuxayo (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I suggest to replace that information box with a warning box saying something like "This tag is problematic because many of the features with this tag are not actually embassies. A new tag office=diplomatic has been approved that does not have this problem. Please use the new tag(s) for newly mapped features. If you work on an existing feature, please add the tag(s) for the new tagging so we can deprecate amenity=embassy over time." --Lyx (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
«Please use the new tag(s) for newly mapped features.» Do you mean *only* the new tag?
«existing feature, please add the tag(s) for the new tagging» While keeping amenity=embassy related tags right?
Tuxayo (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I intended to say. --Lyx (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
What do we do with this? : «The deprecated amenity=embassy tag should be retained for the time being to allow rendering rules to be updated.»
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office%3Ddiplomatic
How do we usually not get stuck with old tags while not doing mistakes by pushing to "abruptly"(strange wording, non-native speaker) for new tags?
Tuxayo (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It is still an info box, not a warning box. @Tuxayo, can you change it please to a warning box but with your current text "There is a newer tag office=diplomatic which also covers these diplomatic facilities and in the approved proposal it was suggested to deprecate amenity=embassy over time. Consider adding the newer tag and subtags as well."? I like the text, just think an info box doesn't quite get the point across that in a year or so amenity=embassy should go away. Apm-wa (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not see a reason for making this a warning, no risk involved, info level is ok. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)