Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
67 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Paul Allen
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 21:59, Marc M. <[hidden email]> wrote:

- avoid having 2 tags for the same thing.
it's bad for both contributors and data-uses.

Except we don't all agree that they are for the same thing, not even phone
and contact:phone  That's one of the reasons this argument goes around and around.
The other is that those who agree they are the same thing cannot agree on which
of the two to use.

- using namespace for contact: (like we do with addr:) it's useful for
the use of the data (you can group them without having to hard-code
all the possible variants that may exist in the world).

But not all of them are necessarily contacts.  I've added URLs for
historic buildings that give more information about the building.  There is
nobody to talk to about it.  I've added websites for companies; there is
a contact page on that website but the URL I've given is for the company
website as a whole.

--
Paul


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Philip Barnes


On Monday, 4 May 2020, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 21:59, Marc M. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > - avoid having 2 tags for the same thing.
> > it's bad for both contributors and data-uses.
> >
>
> Except we don't all agree that they are for the same thing, not even phone
> and contact:phone  That's one of the reasons this argument goes around and
> around.

Exactly, we add phone to phoneboxes, but its not the number to call to contact someone about the phonebox.

Phil (trigpoint)

> The other is that those who agree they are the same thing cannot agree on
> which
> of the two to use.
>
> >
> > - using namespace for contact: (like we do with addr:) it's useful for
> > the use of the data (you can group them without having to hard-code
> > all the possible variants that may exist in the world).
> >
>
> But not all of them are necessarily contacts.  I've added URLs for
> historic buildings that give more information about the building.  There is
> nobody to talk to about it.  I've added websites for companies; there is
> a contact page on that website but the URL I've given is for the company
> website as a whole.
>
> --
> Paul
>

--
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: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Marc M.
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Le 04.05.20 à 23:19, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 21:59, Marc M. wrote:
>
>     - avoid having 2 tags for the same thing.
>     it's bad for both contributors and data-uses.
>
> Except we don't all agree that they are for the same thing,
> not even phone and contact:phone

read the page about forests (or the current discussion on
leisure=common): it doesn't matter *anymore* if some contributors make
a difference between the 2, in the end it's impossible to separate the
different meanings.
The only solution is to create other tags to better describe
this difference.

> I've added URLs for historic buildings
> that give more information about the building.

as for the plate, imho I would use website, but maybe url=*
you said you added an url :)

but if it's a valid argument, let's split the issue in 2 :
for all poi (shop, office, craft, bar, restaurant), does phone
and contact:phone have the same meaning or you have another undocumented
meaning that explain it's not the same ?
and email<>contact:email ?

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 4. May 2020, at 23:59, Marc M. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> for all poi (shop, office, craft, bar, restaurant), does phone
> and contact:phone have the same meaning or you have another undocumented
> meaning that explain it's not the same ?


for me a phone booth is a poi. Are you proposing different tags for phone numbers, depending on the kind of object they get tagged to?

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Marc M.
Le 05.05.20 à 00:05, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> On 4. May 2020, at 23:59, Marc M. <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> for all poi (shop, office, craft, bar, restaurant), does phone
>> and contact:phone have the same meaning or you have another undocumented
>> meaning that explain it's not the same ?
> for me a phone booth is a poi.

ok, rewording :
for all shop, office, craft, bar, restaurant,
does phone and contact:phone have the same meaning ?

> Are you proposing different tags for phone numbers, depending on the kind of object they get tagged to?

I haven't proposed anything yet, I asked a question about
the meaning of the phone tag according to the context.
feel free to reply to the question :)

Regards, Marc

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Marc M.
On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 22:59, Marc M. <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le 04.05.20 à 23:19, Paul Allen a écrit :
>
> Except we don't all agree that they are for the same thing,
> not even phone and contact:phone

The only solution is to create other tags to better describe
this difference.

That can work.  It can also mean we end up with four different tags
for the same two things.

> I've added URLs for historic buildings
> that give more information about the building.

as for the plate, imho I would use website, but maybe url=*
you said you added an url :)

I tend to use website when it's for the main page of a website and URL
for a page within a website.  Technically they're both URLs but we
don't have a webpage tag and I feel uncomfortable calling a single
page which is part of a much larger website a website.

but if it's a valid argument, let's split the issue in 2 :
for all poi (shop, office, craft, bar, restaurant), does phone
and contact:phone have the same meaning or you have another undocumented
meaning that explain it's not the same ?

For me, they're the same thing.  Others have different opinions on that.  And,
as Phil pointed out, we use phone for phone boxes.  Even if you managed to
persuade everyone to use contact:phone for everything else, we'd need
phone for phone boxes where there is nobody to contact.

and email<>contact:email ?

 There are email addresses that aren't for contacting human beings.  The
address to unsubscribe from this list is one such.  I can't think of any
reason we'd need to map that type of address, but my imagination is
limited.  So contact:email is fine by me.  But probably not by others.

Facebook is more problematic.  I've encountered facebook pages
which are just a way of getting a free web presence and are not
used as a way of contacting the organization.  From my
perspective, contact:facebook would only be applicable to
the m.me/user style URLs that fire up messenger.  But that's
just me.

--
Paul




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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Cj Malone
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
> But not all of them are necessarily contacts.  I've added URLs for
> historic buildings that give more information about the
> building.  There is nobody to talk to about it.  I've added websites
> for companies; there is a contact page on that website but the URL
> I've given is for the company website as a whole.

Surely that's an argument for new tags as well as contact:website, for
example description:website where a user agent could give users a "Read
more" link. A website tag is generic, which has the obvious benefit of
used widely and easily, but more precise tags like contact:website give
user agents much more flexibility.


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Paul Allen
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:00, Cj Malone <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But not all of them are necessarily contacts.  I've added URLs for
> historic buildings that give more information about the
> building.  There is nobody to talk to about it.  I've added websites
> for companies; there is a contact page on that website but the URL
> I've given is for the company website as a whole.

Surely that's an argument for new tags as well as contact:website, for
example description:website where a user agent could give users a "Read
more" link. A website tag is generic, which has the obvious benefit of
used widely and easily, but more precise tags like contact:website give
user agents much more flexibility.

It was an argument against replacing website=* with contact:website=*
as some seemed to be proposing.  If you wish to propose more
*:website=* tags that is fine b me (I can use any I find useful and
ignore the rest).

We can't replace phone with contact:phone in all cases, as some wish to do,
because of phone boxes.  We can't replace website with contact:website in
all cases, as some wish to do, because there are a lot of POIs with websites
or URLs that are not contacts.  As long as this is understood, I don't have a
problem with contact:phone and contact:website.  If, however, people insist
on replacing phone and website completely, then I will not be happy.

--
Paul


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Cj Malone
On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 22:28 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> We can't replace phone with contact:phone in all cases, as some wish
> to do, because of phone boxes.  We can't replace website with
> contact:website in all cases, as some wish to do, because there are a
> lot of POIs with websites or URLs that are not contacts.  As long as
> this is understood, I don't have a problem with contact:phone and
> contact:website.  If, however, people insist on replacing phone and
> website completely, then I will not be happy.

I agree, not all phone tags convert to contact:phone, same with the
others. I don't think anybody is talking about a mass edit of the
database.

I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like
contact:phone when it's a contact number. We can do that through the
wiki, and defaults in the editors, and gradually deprecating the
generic tags.

During the transition to more quantified data we will see edge cases
like public phone boxes, and others we don't yet know about, and we
should discus new tags for them.


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> On 10. May 2020, at 23:55, Cj Malone <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like
> contact:phone when it's a contact number.


why is this “more precise”?
What about even “more precise” tags, like
contact:phone:business_hours=
contact:phone:reservations=
even better?

IMHO dataconsumers find the tags easiest if they use the same key, if they have to search for the keys it will make everyone’s life harder not better.

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Cj Malone
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:55, Cj Malone <[hidden email]> wrote:

I agree, not all phone tags convert to contact:phone, same with the
others. I don't think anybody is talking about a mass edit of the
database.

But that's what they often imply.  Perhaps with carelessly-worded statements,
like the one you're about to make...

I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like
contact:phone when it's a contact number. We can do that through the
wiki, and defaults in the editors,

I'm OK with that.

and gradually deprecating the generic tags.

And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.  I hope
that was merely careless working.
 
During the transition to more quantified data we will see edge cases
like public phone boxes, and others we don't yet know about, and we
should discus new tags for them.

New tags?  Why?  We have existing tags that work fine for them.  It's
starting to sound like you're encouraging mass editing.  More
careless wording?

Those working on editors and cartos may feel that contact:phone=* is an
alias of phone=* and insist we can have one or the other but not both.  If
that happens then we have to stick with phone=* because that applies to
all phones whereas contact:phone=* does not.  The same with website=*
and contact:website=*.

I'm not saying that either of those groups will insist it's one or the other,
merely that it seems possible to me.
--
Paul


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Cj Malone
On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> But that's what they often imply.

I don't know if this is worth saying or not, but this isn't a war,
there aren't sides. We all just want OSM to be the best it can be.

I am fairly new to OSM, especially the mailing lists but I guess you
are coming from a point of view like "They are coming for the phone tag
again". I'm not, I wasn't part of any previous discussions on the phone
tag or contact namespace. I just want to help improve OSM, any way that
I can.

If you are a little annoyed because you've had this discussion multiple
times that just means it's a hot topic for people and discussions will
help everyone understand all the other opinions.

> > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
>
> And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.

I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
definitions that really matter.

As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and
phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused
as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets
gradually move people away from this.

- We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the
Wiki.
- Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a
contact number, or another form of number.
- And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use
of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag.

The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website
and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding
contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just
have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so
doesn't belong in contact:website.



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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Paul Allen
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 01:38, Cj Malone <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
>
> And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.

I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.

And yet you, and others, keep saying it.  "Deprecate" means "express
disapproval of."  In the context of OSM, it means "phase out."  That is,
eradicate with the passage of time.  It may not be what you mean, but
it's what you keep saying.

Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
definitions that really matter.

Replacing tags isn't easy.  There is inertia from various parties involved.
Carto has a rule of "no aliases."  Which means that however compelling
you feel that replacing a=b with x=y is a good idea, they'll almost certainly
reject it because "no aliases."  The editor people have their own foibles, too,
but they're more likely to decide they don't like a=b or x=y and go with
p=q.

Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except
we don't like automated edits.  But without cleaning it up, you make
database queries more complex.

As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and
phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused
as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets
gradually move people away from this.

I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone number.
If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number.  If
I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for
the business.  What extra utility does having contact:phone provide?
And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags to
fix?

- We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the
Wiki.

I don't see any useful difference.  It's a phone number.  I dial it and the
phone on the other end rings.  Why would I expect a business to have
a phone number they never answer?

- Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a
contact number, or another form of number.

What difference does it make?  I can understand wanting to distinguish
fax numbers from numbers that people answer.  That doesn't
require contact:phone=* for the voice number, just fax=* for the
fax number.

- And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use
of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag.

First you have to convince them that this is a good idea in the first place.
And you'll have to convince some people on the list that having a "more
quantified" tag is a good thing.

The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website
and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding
contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just
have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so
doesn't belong in contact:website.

I'm far from convinced that contact:website is useful.  It's certainly
semantically wrong.  It's a contact;webpage not a contact:website
(there are maybe a handful of exceptions to that).  Why do you think
the user is more likely to require the webpage giving contact details
rather than the home page of the web site?  I'd expect users are
more likely to want more information on what a POI is than to
want to find out how to contact it.

I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived.  But fine, if
you want it then use it.  Just please stop suggesting that we
deprecate website=* and phone=*.

--
Paul


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Cj Malone



May 11, 2020, 02:36 by [hidden email]:
On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> and gradually deprecating the generic tags.

And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.

I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
But "gradually deprecating" means that this tags will be eliminated,
what seems to me to have the same meaning as "wanting to get rid of".

Whatever it will done in 24 hours or 24 years is not changing that goal
of tag deprecation is to utterly eliminate it.

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Cj Malone
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> And yet you, and others, keep saying it.  "Deprecate" means "express
> disapproval of."  In the context of OSM, it means "phase out."  That
> is,
> eradicate with the passage of time.  It may not be what you mean, but
> it's what you keep saying.

Any yet what I described was a phase out with 3 steps.

> Replacing tags isn't easy.  There is inertia from various parties
> involved.
> Carto has a rule of "no aliases."  Which means that however
> compelling
> you feel that replacing a=b with x=y is a good idea, they'll almost
> certainly
> reject it because "no aliases."  The editor people have their own
> foibles, too,
> but they're more likely to decide they don't like a=b or x=y and go
> with
> p=q.

I thought this mailing list was the official avenue for disusing,
changing and adding tags in OSM. I didn't realise you had to get the
editor permission.

> Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except
> we don't like automated edits.  But without cleaning it up, you make
> database queries more complex.

I don't have any arguments against automated edits, bulk edits, machine
assisted edits. In any dataset they are needed, especially one this
massive. But it's not a fight I have the effort to fight right now.

> I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone
> number.
> If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number.
> If
> I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for
> the business.  What extra utility does having contact:phone provide?
> And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags
> to
> fix?

That's just one edge case with the phone tag. Another one being phone
on parking. Is that the number you call to pay, or is it the number you
call to contact the operator because there is something wrong.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who knows.

I believe there are more edge cases we still aren't thinking of, and if
we aren't the user agents defiantly aren't.



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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Cj Malone
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 03:27 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

> May 11, 2020, 02:36 by [hidden email]:
> > On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
> > >
> > > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.
> >
> > I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> > arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
>
> But "gradually deprecating" means that this tags will be eliminated,
> what seems to me to have the same meaning as "wanting to get rid of".
>
> Whatever it will done in 24 hours or 24 years is not changing that
> goal
> of tag deprecation is to utterly eliminate it.

I don't hate the phone tag because if it's name and want to fight
everyone so they have to type contact:phone because I want to utterly
eliminate phone. That's silly.

The goal is quantifiable and usable data.

If the end of this discussion is explicit tags for edge cases, and
phone only used for the contact phone number that's fine by me. Sure it
might look better with a contact: namespace and be easier to describe,
but that doesn't matter. It's the definitions that do.


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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Cj Malone
Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 02:38 Uhr schrieb Cj Malone <[hidden email]>:
Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
definitions that really matter.



if you get rid of the idea that "contact number" merits its own specific key, then you can see them both as "incoming numbers" and there is just a single use instead of 2.
At that point, abandon "contact:phone" as that catches only 1 of the 2 cases you identified, and you are left with "phone" which is ok for all use cases.

Cheers
Martin

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Cj Malone
On 5/10/20 7:36 PM, Cj Malone wrote:
> I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
> Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
> number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
> phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
> definitions that really matter.

Why should we split these out?

In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on
phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something useful?

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

s8evq-2
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Hi Paul,

On Mon, 11 May 2020 02:10:12 +0100, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived.  But fine, if
> you want it then use it.  Just please stop suggesting that we
> deprecate website=* and phone=*.

What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:* makes it easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one go, instead of hard coding all the possible keys. What if next year a new way of contacting comes up?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

s8evq-2
In reply to this post by Cj Malone
+1
I find you wrote down very sound and logical arguments.
Splitting phone into "a way of contacting a business" and "a telephone number of a phonebooth" sounds logic.

Counterargument is that you can figure this out by the fact that phone=* + shop=* means it's a business number. phone+amenity=telephone means it's a phonebox' number. So there can not be confusion.

How is the general OSM consensus on this. Do we have a lot of keys with double meaning, where you need to look at the which keys are also on the object to figure out the true meaning?

On Mon, 11 May 2020 01:36:51 +0100, Cj Malone <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > But that's what they often imply.
>
> I don't know if this is worth saying or not, but this isn't a war,
> there aren't sides. We all just want OSM to be the best it can be.
>
> I am fairly new to OSM, especially the mailing lists but I guess you
> are coming from a point of view like "They are coming for the phone tag
> again". I'm not, I wasn't part of any previous discussions on the phone
> tag or contact namespace. I just want to help improve OSM, any way that
> I can.
>
> If you are a little annoyed because you've had this discussion multiple
> times that just means it's a hot topic for people and discussions will
> help everyone understand all the other opinions.
>
> > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
> >
> > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.
>
> I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
> Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
> number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
> phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
> definitions that really matter.
>
> As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and
> phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused
> as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets
> gradually move people away from this.
>
> - We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the
> Wiki.
> - Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a
> contact number, or another form of number.
> - And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use
> of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag.
>
> The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website
> and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding
> contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just
> have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so
> doesn't belong in contact:website.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1234