Talk:Switzerland/amenity=post box

check_date

I added the recommended tag check_date to the table. This helps to improve user trust and supports later QA processes.

Since collection_times tend to change more frequently, the explicit mention of the tag combination check_date:collection_times may further improve user trust.

For tag combinations, the wiki favors the usage of "check_date" as a prefix on the page Key:check_date. Overpass and Taginfo analyses show that this recommendation is followed in practice in the majority of cases.

amenity=post_box

• Switzerland: 98.9% (8 300 prefix, 90 postfix)
• Worldwide: 99.4% (19 675 prefix, 116 postfix)

Worldwide most common tag combinations with check_date

1. 98.6% opening_hours (128 742 prefix, 1 821 postfix)
2. 99.4% collection_times (19 675 prefix, 116 postfix)
3. 100.0% parking (1 964 prefix, 0 postfix)
4. 100.0% contact:phone (3 prefix, 0 postfix)
5. 84.0% website (644 prefix, 123 postfix)
6. 99.1% name (342 prefix, 3 postfix)
7. 100.0% operator (2 prefix, 0 postfix)
8. 92.1% access (163 prefix, 14 postfix)
9. 100.0% addr:housenumber (18 prefix, 0 postfix)

--Wintifrosch (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

scheduled updates

Swiss post are reducing the collection times. There is a tool «Swiss Post Standortsuche» with the current location and collection times. (Example), but the user interface is quite clumsy.

Some po box entries in the OSM database have an update timestamp, but many don't. I have the following proposals:

1. add a row for an optional tag collection_times:check_date containing an ISO-8601 formatted date timestamp.
2. on GitHub, publish a worker library in python that updates the database on a regular basis, like once every week.
   1. Every worker will publish his «last run» on github to create an index of all running workers.
   2. Every worker will add source references like "source": "Swiss Post Standortsuche" and "source:date": "2025-12-17"

Any Feedback from the OSM Community?

--Wintifrosch (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wintifrosch: I'm not sure if we are allowed to copy the data from https://places.post.ch/ into OSM. --Habi (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Habi: After posting the above idea about «scheduled updates», I've raised a discussion in the community forum about a project idea that does not copy, import or redistribute Swiss Post data, but derives review hints for human on-the-ground verification only. To avoid splitting the discussion around licensing and scope, follow the discussion in the thread Proposed QA tool: comparing Swiss Post letterbox data with OSM (Switzerland) in the forum.

However, the tag collection_times:check_date in every node seems to be recommended to me, since Swiss Post is degrading collection times lastly. --Wintifrosch (talk)

Swiss Post Letter Boxes

Nice compare tool. From the license, I think we should add that the data may not be entered into OSM from that tool, to use it only to look for differences? --Datendelphin (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Datendelphin: Yes, that is a good idea. I added a notice to let users know they should not copy data directly. --1-Byte (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

looks good, thank you --Datendelphin (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)