Talk:Tag:amenity=letter box
USPS Cluster Box Units (CBUs)
What is the correct way to tag a CBU cluster mailbox? These have an outgoing mail slot, many individually-locking boxes for addresses, and usually some parcel lockers. There can be dozens of addresses that send and receive mail from one box cluster. Should we use the same tags as the Canadian equivalent?
Multiple boxes
Mention how to say there are e.g., Multiple values: five boxes on one pole (without going into address details.) All I could find was https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54733 . Jidanni (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Add a parameter to allow the user to say there is a rack with 20 mailboxes. Jidanni (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Somehow revived in Talk:One feature, one OSM element#A rack of 20 mailboxes, for example. ---- Kovposch (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Unsuitable key
These are not well tagged under the amenity key IMHO. I'm all for people mapping whatever they like, but amenity is not a good key for private things that nobody cares about then yourself. --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Not rendered?
So is there an example we can see on the map, or are all Tag:amenity=letter box invisible? Jidanni (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- rendering them on the standard style would somehow confirm the tagging, which is IMHO not desirable, these aren’t amenities, not more than your front door or the waste bin in your kitchen. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- amenity key is perfectly fine here, and not a reason for not rendering them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are aware that this is about these private boxes: and not about amenity=post_box? Under which definition of amenity these would suit "perfectly fine"? The amenity key says it is "Covering an assortment of community facilities including toilets, telephones, banks, pharmacies and schools." IMHO these are not "community facilities" --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I fixed description on Key:amenity, reusing one from infobox. Amenity key is already widely used also for private features, like over 250k private parking. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- For me it doesn't seem reasonable to copy the problems with parking to other features. It should also be noted that parkings exist in different manifestations, ranging from free and public to unaccessible and private, while private letterboxes are always private. I stand by my comment above: bad choice for the key.--Dieterdreist (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think we will agree that we disagree here, I still see no benefit from inventing new keys Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. It could be put in man_made=*—Dieterdreist (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think we will agree that we disagree here, I still see no benefit from inventing new keys Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- For me it doesn't seem reasonable to copy the problems with parking to other features. It should also be noted that parkings exist in different manifestations, ranging from free and public to unaccessible and private, while private letterboxes are always private. I stand by my comment above: bad choice for the key.--Dieterdreist (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. I fixed description on Key:amenity, reusing one from infobox. Amenity key is already widely used also for private features, like over 250k private parking. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- You are aware that this is about these private boxes: and not about amenity=post_box? Under which definition of amenity these would suit "perfectly fine"? The amenity key says it is "Covering an assortment of community facilities including toilets, telephones, banks, pharmacies and schools." IMHO these are not "community facilities" --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- amenity key is perfectly fine here, and not a reason for not rendering them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
