Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Tagging mailing list
Hey,

I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
your voice at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone. The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal page carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the `content` section) there will be the specification shown in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone

Proposal description:
This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
purpose in use.

--
Cheers

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram,


Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Joseph Eisenberg
I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
proposed changes.

For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

- Joseph

On 10/21/19, Valor Naram via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
> telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
> your voice at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone.
> The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal
> page carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the
> `content` section) there will be the specification shown in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
>
> Proposal description:
> This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
> tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
> which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
> purpose in use.
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram,
>
>
> Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
> Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Kevin Kenny-3
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:54 PM Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

Including the country code in the US, though, is Mostly Harmless,
since 1 is widely used as a dialing prefix. A leading 1 digit flags to
a lot of USA phone systems that the number to follow is ten digits
(rather than a 7-digit local number). Most USAians are therefore
familiar with seeing a phone number written like 1-800-555-1212. +1
800 555 1212 doesn't look overly weird to a USAian, the only thing
that would raise eyebrows is the plus sign.

Where I've mapped USA phone numbers, I've used the country code.


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Warin
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
> contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
> proposed changes.
>
> For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that number.
So in the Australian Tagging Guidelines that are instructions on how to tag phone numbers in OSM using +61.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Phone_Numbers

I would suggest similar guides for Indonesia and America.
Where a phone number in OSM does not start with a '+' that can mean it needs some attention, with some exceptions as a few phone numbers are not accessible from outside the particular country.

>
> - Joseph
>
> On 10/21/19, Valor Naram via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
>> telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
>> your voice at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone.
>> The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal
>> page carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the
>> `content` section) there will be the specification shown in
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
>>
>> Proposal description:
>> This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
>> tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
>> which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
>> purpose in use.
>>
>>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Paul Allen
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 00:58, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that number.

I've been mapping for around 2 years now, and the wiki for phone=* specified ITU format
back then.  Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the number format
wasn't one of those changes.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Joseph Eisenberg
> Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the number format
wasn't one of those changes

Sorry, I didn't realize this. I was reading the proposal and assumed
that the "Content" section was supposed to be different.

Valor Naram, could you clarify what specific changes will be made to
the page, based on approval of this proposal? Is it just rewording, or
are there any significant changes to how the tag is used?

- Joseph

On 10/21/19, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 00:58, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> >
>> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
>> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
>> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
>>
>> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it
>> is
>> what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call
>> that
>> number.
>>
>
> I've been mapping for around 2 years now, and the wiki for phone=*
> specified ITU format
> back then.  Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the
> number format
> wasn't one of those changes.
>
> --
> Paul
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 00:54 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.


you do not have to include the country prefix when calling inside the country, you need it to be reachable from outside, so there is seems some problem in your reasoning ("to other countries").
I thought it was already suggested to add the country prefix every time for phonenumbers (because they should be added in some ISO format), like we also request the protocol to be added to "website" values.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Philip Barnes
In reply to this post by Warin


On Monday, 21 October 2019, Warin wrote:

> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > I'm in favor of deprecating contact:phone now (and the other
> > contact:XXX duplicates later), but I don't know about your other
> > proposed changes.
> >
> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
>
> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it is what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call that number.
> So in the Australian Tagging Guidelines that are instructions on how to tag phone numbers in OSM using +61.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Phone_Numbers
>
> I would suggest similar guides for Indonesia and America.
> Where a phone number in OSM does not start with a '+' that can mean it needs some attention, with some exceptions as a few phone numbers are not accessible from outside the particular country.
>
A + prefix is the standard way of entering phone numbers in OSM, but in the real world it is also the standard way to enter phone numbers in your mobile phone. If you enter numbers as would work at home, you will get errors when you try to call those numbers when roaming.

Phil (trigpoint)

--
Sent from my Sailfish device
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
> Valor Naram, could you clarify what specific changes will be made to
> the page, based on approval of this proposal? Is it just rewording, or
> are there any significant changes to how the tag is used?

Basically it's just a rewording and redesign but actually there are some minor differences.

Specifications I did not include:
- If your country does not use area codes, that part should be left out.
- Note that for phone numbers that are in international E.164 format, space (or even hyphen) separators are not significant, but the convention is to use a separator at least between the ITU-T country code and the rest of the phone number. The other groupings are optional: area codes should preferably be separated only in countries where they are still used distinctly for domestic calls; in other countries, the groupings are just kept by convenience and according to local usages in phone books or as shown in amenities (these groupings may vary for mnemonic reasons only, there's no requirement to suppress these group separators even if they are ignored when dialing).
- Some mappers started to add emergency numbers to police stations, hospitals and fire stations. This is fine as long as local numbers are used and the number is really bound to the object. You should not map objects with universal emergency numbers (e.g. 911 / 110 / 112) for local objects since this could result in non emergency calls blocking real emergency calls when people try to reach a local police station, hospital or fire station with non emergency matters.
- In NANPA countries such as the United States and Canada, businesses commonly use phonewords in posted phone numbers. phone=* should contain the numeric, fully resolved phone number for machine readability. Phonewords seen on signage etc. can go in phone:mnemonic=*, which could help search engines display the phone number more memorably. For example, "710-555-BEEF" would be tagged phone=+1-710-555-2333 phone:mnemonic=+1-710-555-BEEF and "55-KLICK" within the 710 area code would be tagged phone=+1-710-555-5425 phone:mnemonic=+1-710-55-KLICK.
- "How to map" section
- Italy does not omit the 0 in the international format like many countries do (the "0" default trunk prefix may be replaced by a "trunk selection code" in calls from within the country, but only for phone numbers that have this selection feature enabled: not all national phone numbers have a trunk selection code, and some ranges of "short" numbers, not starting with the default "0" trunk code, may also be called internationally; so this default "0" trunk code must still be used when calling from abroad). So the Milan number 02.724261 becomes phone=+39 02 724261 in OSM. A few other countries are doing the same and require dialing the national trunk selection code when calling them from abroad.
- The phone numbers in the United States and Canada consist of the following four elements: "+" (plus sign), the international country code (1), the area code and the local telephone number (written in two memorable blocks). A locally formatted US number may look like this: (303) 555-1765 (without the international area code). The same phone number in E.164 format would be: +1 303 555 1765. However, the NANP notation (+1-303-355-1765) is used as a quasi-standard based on the local notation (see Usage section).
- "Parsing phone numbers" section

Summary: I removed all sections which interfere with the international code or sections which support the international code because its specific at the beginning. I also assume that mappers leave `` out in countries that do not have area codes.

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)
From: Joseph Eisenberg
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:


> Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the number format
wasn't one of those changes

Sorry, I didn't realize this. I was reading the proposal and assumed
that the "Content" section was supposed to be different.

Valor Naram, could you clarify what specific changes will be made to
the page, based on approval of this proposal? Is it just rewording, or
are there any significant changes to how the tag is used?

- Joseph

On 10/21/19, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 00:58, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 21/10/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> >
>> > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not
>> > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these
>> > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.
>>
>> It is not 'standard practice' in Australia, New Zealand either.. but it
>> is
>> what is done in OSM to enable people from outside that country to call
>> that
>> number.
>>
>
> I've been mapping for around 2 years now, and the wiki for phone=*
> specified ITU format
> back then. Whatever else may have been changed in this proposal, the
> number format
> wasn't one of those changes.
>
> --
> Paul
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

marc marc
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Le 20.10.19 à 20:01, Valor Naram via Tagging a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
is it a good idea and valid to open a vote with a url different from the
conventions made for proposals? it makes it much less readable for the
community
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 11:06 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram via Tagging <[hidden email]>:
Specifications I did not include:
- Some mappers started to add emergency numbers to police stations, hospitals and fire stations. This is fine as long as local numbers are used and the number is really bound to the object. You should not map objects with universal emergency numbers (e.g. 911 / 110 / 112) for local objects since this could result in non emergency calls blocking real emergency calls when people try to reach a local police station, hospital or fire station with non emergency matters.


I believe this would be a helpful comment to discourage the practise of adding generic emergency numbers, because it really happened.


- In NANPA countries such as the United States and Canada, businesses commonly use phonewords in posted phone numbers. phone=* should contain the numeric, fully resolved phone number for machine readability. Phonewords seen on signage etc. can go in phone:mnemonic=*, which could help search engines display the phone number more memorably. For example, "710-555-BEEF" would be tagged phone=+1-710-555-2333 phone:mnemonic=+1-710-555-BEEF and "55-KLICK" within the 710 area code would be tagged phone=+1-710-555-5425 phone:mnemonic=+1-710-55-KLICK.
- "How to map" section
- Italy does not omit the 0 in the international format like many countries do (the "0" default trunk prefix may be replaced by a "trunk selection code" in calls from within the country, but only for phone numbers that have this selection feature enabled: not all national phone numbers have a trunk selection code, and some ranges of "short" numbers, not starting with the default "0" trunk code, may also be called internationally; so this default "0" trunk code must still be used when calling from abroad). So the Milan number 02.724261 becomes phone=+39 02 724261 in OSM. A few other countries are doing the same and require dialing the national trunk selection code when calling them from abroad.


These 2 points could go into a country (or region)-specific paragraph. The Italian example was added because of foreign mappers converting the local numbers incorrectly (and to help editor authors for creating verification rules). People assuming the zero must go away is an issue, I even experienced with my former (foreign) hosting provider that the Italian numbers I added for whois (in the international format) were converted and the zeros removed (and I had to exchange more than one email with their support to get it rectified).

 
- The phone numbers in the United States and Canada consist of the following four elements: "+" (plus sign), the international country code (1), the area code and the local telephone number (written in two memorable blocks). A locally formatted US number may look like this: (303) 555-1765 (without the international area code). The same phone number in E.164 format would be: +1 303 555 1765. However, the NANP notation (+1-303-355-1765) is used as a quasi-standard based on the local notation (see Usage section).


also country specific section

 
Cheers
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 10:06, Valor Naram via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

Specifications I did not include:

[...]

Those all look useful to me.  If you object to any specific one of them, say so in the
proposal and what your objection is.  If you wanted to simplify the wiki page, then
rearrange it, or move some stuff out to a separate page but don't simply omit it.  Because
at least some of the things you omitted are clarifications that were added because mappers
were adding numbers incorrectly.  Had I realized you'd removed all of that stuff I'd have
voted against your proposal for that reason as well as the reason I already voted against it.
--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Hello all,

since the vote takes currently place, I want to use the time to comment on some reasons given by mappers who opposed my proposal. Normally I won't do that but my personal feel says that it's necessary here. I'm going to use e-mail style quoting for quoting.

> Without evidence that phone/contact:phone is intrinsically different > from other contact tags, discussing it on its own makes tagging less > orthogonal, which is bad both for mappers and users.

In future we might have the discussion of deprecating the whole `contact` schema because that wouldn't interfere with the orthogonal approach which we by the way do not always follow. But if you think that creating wikipages for each tag in the `contact` schema when deprecating the whole `contact` schema would make tagging less orthogonal, I can please you. For this cases we can simply create a wikipage e.g. `contact` that lists all the tags which can be used to gather contacting data. But it wouldn't be necessary because each wikipage belongs to a category and a category can be used to get an overview of all the pages and therefore tags belonging to that category. We can also create a new category `contact` but in my opinion it wouldn't be necessary to do that.

> I think that what the contact scheme offers is much more adaptable, > more orthogonal, and easier to understand than what would be approved by > this proposal.

In understanding there shouldn't be any difference between using the `contact` schema or just the single `phone`. And more mappers are using the `phone` tag than `contact:phone` and other mappers use presets and do not care on tags at all.

> I'm not convinced it is terrible to have both contact:phone and phone. > I'm not convinced that they are used entirely interchangeably and that > there are no subtle nuances. Even if I were convinced we had to > standardize on one, I'm not convinced that phone is preferable (or that > contact:phone is preferable). Better arguments would be required to > convince me both that we have to deprecate one of them and that > contact:phone is the one we should deprecate.

To the first statement: Apparently you aren't a developer who wants to use/uses data from the OpenStreetMap project. We need to check, if `phone` and `contact:phone` are equal or not. That takes time. Time we could have spend on other (useful) things, if the OSM community had not done this. And if we detect that they are equal like in this case, we will need to develop a replacement function which we hate because normally you wouldn't do such crazy things like having two tags for the same purpose.

To the second statement: But there are to 99,99% the same. Just the name is different. But I have a question: Did you find the "subtle nuances" you're assuming? Because I do not but now you have the chance to point me in the right direction, maybe I and others have overseen something? Please let us know!

> violates single subject rule, phone number formatting etc. needs to be > discussed separately (not to mention that there is in general no need to > "deprecate" tags in OSM)

What is the "single subject rule" you are talking about? Is there any resource mentioning that rule? Would really here that. But anyway I do not propose a new way of phone number formatting. But do you mean with `etc`? Why discussing seperately, they belonging to the specification?! Did we specify the syntax of `opening_hours` before actually specifying the key `opening_hours`? There is sometimes the need to deprecate tags in OSM e.g. when most people do not aggree with the specification or special cases like the deprecated key `diaper`. But again: I do not propose anything new. All I wrote or copied from other resources are already there in our wiki and used among mapping communities.

> contact:* seems a useful way to group methods for data consumers

Data consumers normally do not get to know the tags because that is to technical. The mainstream user wants it simple and tags aren't very user friendly. I think you're referring to data users who interpret the tags and therefore decide how data will be represented to the customers (e.g. maps.me users).

> . The contact scheme is a useful namespace for collecting methods > through which a user might contact a business or other entity. "Phone" > is too general, and could be mistaken as a carrier for telephone-related > information other than the phone number itself.

People who work with OSM data or creating/modifying it are likely to take a look on the wikipage before using so they use tags the right way.

> There are too much different things for a single proposal. Changes to > the phone tagging schema and deprecation of the contact:phone tagging > schema should be separated. I love the contact tagging schema. I thinks > that there is no problem if both schemata coexist.

To the first statement: I do not make changes to the specifications of the `phone` key. I just do a re-wording.

To your last statement: Apparently you aren't a developer who wants to use/uses data from the OpenStreetMap project. E.g. we need to check, if `phone` and `contact:phone` are equal or not. That takes time. Time we could have spend on other (useful) things, if the OSM community had not done this. And if we detect that they are equal like in this case, we will need to develop a replacement function which we hate because normally you wouldn't do such crazy things like having two tags for the same purpose.


-- 
Cheers

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram,


Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Hi,

the vote is running out on 5th Novembre 2019. Please vote for "Yes" and make life easier for both mappers and developer.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone


My mission is to clean up the "mess" from the past. My mission is to prepare OSM for Mainstream entry. My mission is to make understanding and using OpenStreetMap easier for data users and potencial new mappers.

Things like "Two Tags For The Same Purpose" prevents that. Supporting two tags causes more work and pain to all: for developers, researchers, for mappers, for the OpenStreetMap Community and of course for customers.

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)
From: Valor Naram via Tagging
To: [hidden email]
CC: Valor Naram


Hey,

I finally opened the voting "Make `phone` Tag default for tagging
telephone numbers in OSM and deprecating contact:phone`. Please place
your voice at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone. The Voting will be closed at 5th Novembre 2019. Please read the Proposal page carefully before waiting because the specification (everything in the `content` section) there will be the specification shown in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone

Proposal description:
This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official
tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone
which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same
purpose in use.

--
Cheers

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram,


Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Mateusz Konieczny-3

26 Oct 2019, 21:33 by [hidden email]:
Hi,

the vote is running out on 5th Novembre 2019. Please vote for "Yes" and make life easier for both mappers and developer.
It is kind in a poor taste to do request voting for a specific option.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 26 ott 2019, alle ore 21:34, Valor Naram via Tagging <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> Things like "Two Tags For The Same Purpose" prevents that. Supporting two tags causes more work and pain to all: for developers, researchers, for mappers, for the OpenStreetMap Community and of course for customers.


Great you are so passionate about this, but with so many people opposing the deprecation, even if the vote passes we will have to continue living with both tags, probably.

Any tags you like, etc.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


sent from a phone

Il giorno 26 ott 2019, alle ore 22:05, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

the vote is running out on 5th Novembre 2019. Please vote for "Yes" and make life easier for both mappers and developer.
It is kind in a poor taste to do request voting for a specific option.


It there are two options, change something or not, and he is the initiator of the proposal, it is implicit anyway that he’s for “yes”/his own proposal.

Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

Valor Naram
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
Hey,

it's over. I closed the vote with 61 votes against and 46 votes for my proposal. My proposal has been rejected by community members: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone


-- 
Cheers

~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram


Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io
Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 5. Nov 2019, at 14:05, Valor Naram <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hey,

it's over. I closed the vote with 61 votes against and 46 votes for my proposal. My proposal has been rejected by community members: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone


that’s a notable participation, compared to average tag votings in the OpenStreetMap wiki, interestingly, as an approval would probably have had the same effect than the rejection ;-)


Cheers Martin 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

MARLIN LUKE
Given the comments, wouldn't it make sense to reopen at the opposite, i.e legitimating contact:phone over phone?

The idea of having only one instead of two tags was apparently quite approved in itself.

De : Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Envoyé : mardi 5 novembre 2019 22:29
À : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Objet : Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)
 


sent from a phone

On 5. Nov 2019, at 14:05, Valor Naram <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hey,

it's over. I closed the vote with 61 votes against and 46 votes for my proposal. My proposal has been rejected by community members: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone


that’s a notable participation, compared to average tag votings in the OpenStreetMap wiki, interestingly, as an approval would probably have had the same effect than the rejection ;-)


Cheers Martin 


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12