Talk:Key:post office

"unclear tags"

This article is really unclear and includes tags that aren't either approved or not being used. So I'm going to clean it up and clarify things if there's no issues with me doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, anyone know why the link to the proposal isn't working or how it can be fixed? Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: - sorry, first of all: Which of these do you feel is unclear? Which tags are not approved? The tags were all part of the proposal. You'd have to be a little clearer about what you want to "clean up"...

Statuslink is updated. --SafetyIng (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@SafetyIng: Mostly the formatting of the article. As it's rather hard to read through. Tables usually only work when there isn't a ton of them being crammed together and all the fields are being used. Overly long comments, empty boxes, and massive amounts of empty space in-between aren't helpful to anyone. Also, the whole section about "Services" should be gotten rid of or clarified that it wasn't approved. As from what I can tell using them was just a suggestion in the original proposal and not what it was based on. "Services that may be listed doesn't mean "lets throw everything at the wall and go with what sticks." Really, they should been worked out in a separate proposal. Either way though, not every single possible random tag that people can think of should be listed in an article and some of them aren't being used to the point that they are worth mentioning either. So even if the services section is kept it should be trimmed down to the ones that have enough usage to justify a mention. Same goes for the other tags. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

These tags are new, so there is no way there is "enough usage to justify a mention" for all of them yet. All the services listed were part of the proposal and are approved. In any case they should be listed so that everybody who wants to use them know which spelling to use. The order "use, then document" went wrong way too many times already. --Mueschel (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said don't mention the ones that don't have enough to justify it and mention the ones that do. Why are your acting like that can't be done? Your whole message is literally just repeating what I said without actually adding anything. As far as your comment that "The order "use, then document" went wrong way too many times already" goes, that's patently false. No where are long tables of tags with zero usage that people invented off the top of their heads added to articles. Even in cases where someone adds a single tag with no usage most of the time they are quickly reverted. So you clearly don't know what your talking about. Just so we clear, I'm talking about the obvious consensus about things and how they are done in the real world. I don't give a crap about your personal opinion about how it goes wrong or whatever. Do an RfC if you think people should be able to list whatever random, un-used, and nonsensical tags in articles. In the meantime though it's not how the Wiki works. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Services

The "services" that this tag introduces (and really the tag) are extremely non-sensical. A grocery store isn't a post office just it sells stamps. Also, from what I can 99% of the usage is on places where the "services" can legitimately (and should be) just mapped as a separate post office POI. So the whole scheme goes against the One feature, one OSM element guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about whether to use a separate POI or not went for many years, the approved proposal just marked the end of this discussion. The rule you mention actually requires to use this tag and NOT to add a separate POI. The "one feature" is the shop, not one item they offer. --Mueschel (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware the discussion about if to use different POI's or not has been going for many years. As far as I'm aware though proposals can't overrule long standing and well established guidelines. If that was the intent of the proposal then it should have been to have the rule changed. Not create a edge case exception that can be used to justify ignoring it in other cases.

As far as your comment that "the "one feature" is the shop, not one item they offer" I don't get what your saying or how it's relevant since vending machines, ATMs, banks, Etc. Etc. are all mapped as separate POI's from the stores they are located in. In the meantime, no one tags a grocery store that has a video vending machine with video:vending=yes + video:vending:brand=Red_Box or whatever. They map it as a separate POI. Otherwise, things get extremely convoluted. With this tag, in a lot of the cases there's 10 or more tags to show what postal services a convenience store provides, and only 3 or 4 for the actual convenience store. At that point it should just be mapped as a separate node. Add one more "service" to that and people will have to browse through 35 tags just to figure out the place is a convenience store and not a post office, video shop, tobacco store, etc. etc. add nauseum. I don't think such convoluted and obviously problematic tagging should be justified or used just because "the conversation went for many years and blah blah blah.." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're too late with your concern (this is not intended to be offensive in any way). The proposal was open for discussion for many months, and the vote ended with approval. If you see issues with this accepted tagging scheme, the proper way is to write a new proposal to change it as necessary. --Mueschel (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere in proposal process does it say that proposals are automatically by default accepted by the community if they are approved. Nor does it say the proposal becomes the gospel of how to use that tagging scheme and that the tags can't be adjusted later if need be. Clearly you don't know how it's works though and you think the proposal being approved gives you cart carte blanche to act like an authoritarian about anything having to do with it. Technically I can just edit the article if I want. I thought it was better to get other opinions first though. That said, if the only opinions are along the lines of "piss off because I say so", which is what it seems like, then I'm just going to ignore them and edit the article anyway. I'd really like to find a middle ground that satisfies all parties involved in the discussion instead though. Even if you don't and are more concerned with just getting your way then improving the article. And I could really give a crap what your opinion is if that's all your in it for. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The tiff with Mueschel aside, I started this discussion because in America (and I assume other places) we don't consider grocery/convenience/Etc. Etc. stores that sell stamps post offices. So it's nonsensical here (and probably in other places) with a tag that insinuates they are. So far the only answer I've received is "to bad. Do a proposal." Which is completely inadequate and ridiculous. No one should have to do a proposal just to have a tag clarified so that it can apply more clearly to places outside of whatever little European country Mueschel comes from where trees are post offices if you tape a stamp to them. So, I'd really appreciate it if someone actually clarified the usage instead of just deflecting that I just suck it up because the tags were approved. Otherwise, the only thing I can summarize is that the tagging scheme is nonsensical and shouldn't be anywhere outside of Mueschel's tree in their backyard. In the meantime, it's perfectly responsible to expect people to be able to say when exactly a tag shouldn't or shouldn't be used. Just because it's approved doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) be clarified either. I'm willing to give Mueschel the benefit of the doubt that their behavior is because they are incapable of doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)