Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

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

Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Michael Brandtner

Hi,

this is my first message to the mailing list, so bear with me if this is not the correct way for suggesting something like this. I'd like to make a change to the Wiki but wanted to get your opinions first. Many (most?) public parking lots in Germany have the possibility to pay via SMS or smartphone app. For this, the parking lot has a specific number that has to be entered when paying with the mobile device. The number is printed onto the parking ticket machines. At the moment, these reference numbers are very seldom entered into OSM.

I'd like to add a tag to the Wiki page for amenity=parking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking) to encourage mappers to enter this information more often. I think the best tag for this would be ref:mobile_payment, but it hasn't been used yet by anyone else but me. Ref:mobile-payment has 14 uses but I think this is not suitable because the English spelling doesn't use a hyphen for that word. Other tags don't seem to exist yet.

So what do you think?

  1. Should a tag for this purpose be added to the Wiki page?
  2. Is ref:mobile_payment the best tag for that or do you prefer another one?

Michael (Discostu36)


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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Philip Barnes
I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to me implies using your phone for contactless payment.

The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.

Here payment can be made using coins, debit/credit cards (contactless or chip and pin) so I must admit I have ignored this method as it seems a lot of faffing compared to my contactless debit card.

"Phil (trigpoint)


On 20 November 2018 21:51:47 GMT, Michael Brandtner <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

this is my first message to the mailing list, so bear with me if this is not the correct way for suggesting something like this. I'd like to make a change to the Wiki but wanted to get your opinions first. Many (most?) public parking lots in Germany have the possibility to pay via SMS or smartphone app. For this, the parking lot has a specific number that has to be entered when paying with the mobile device. The number is printed onto the parking ticket machines. At the moment, these reference numbers are very seldom entered into OSM.

I'd like to add a tag to the Wiki page for amenity=parking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking) to encourage mappers to enter this information more often. I think the best tag for this would be ref:mobile_payment, but it hasn't been used yet by anyone else but me. Ref:mobile-payment has 14 uses but I think this is not suitable because the English spelling doesn't use a hyphen for that word. Other tags don't seem to exist yet.

So what do you think?

  1. Should a tag for this purpose be added to the Wiki page?
  2. Is ref:mobile_payment the best tag for that or do you prefer another one?

Michael (Discostu36)


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

marc marc
In reply to this post by Michael Brandtner
Le 20. 11. 18 à 22:51, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> this is my first message to the mailing list

welcome

> a specific number that has to be entered when paying with the mobile device

it's a ref specific to this parking to be entered in an app ?
or a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment#Payment_via_phone ?

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Michael Brandtner

Am Dienstag, 20. November 2018, 23:32:40 MEZ hat marc marc <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:

> it's a ref specific to this parking to be entered in an app ?

> or a
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment#Payment_via_phone ?


Yes, it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app or sms. 

But I just realized that I'm also not sure how to enter this payment method. payment:sms is documented in the wiki but how should we enter payment via an app? payment:mobile_payment? payment:app?

And maybe the ref should then be more like

ref:payment:app=12345
ref:payment:sms=12345

Michael

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Michael Brandtner
In reply to this post by Philip Barnes
Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag, 20.November 2018:

> I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to me implies using your phone for contactless payment.

But wouldn't that be payment:contactless? 

> The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.

So your suggestion is payment:pay_by_phone and ref:pay_by_phone?

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

marc marc
In reply to this post by Michael Brandtner
Le 21. 11. 18 à 13:39, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app or sms.

payment:sms=yes or payment:sms=<the number to send the sms to>
payment:<appname>=yes

> ref:payment:app=12345
> ref:payment:sms=12345

ref=12345 look enough, isn't it ?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Paul Allen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:21 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
Le 21. 11. 18 à 13:39, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app or sms.

payment:sms=yes or payment:sms=<the number to send the sms to>
payment:<appname>=yes

> ref:payment:app=12345
> ref:payment:sms=12345

ref=12345 look enough, isn't it ?

No.  Not if it's pay-by-app instead of pay-by-sms.  Not if it's pay-by-bonk (NFC).  Etc.  Any of those might
be possible.  More to the point, ALL of them might be possible, each requiring a different code.

No.  Not if ref has other possible meanings.  Such as the operator's reference to that particular
car park (or whatever) but NOT the number to put in an SMS.  Etc.

--
Paul


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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

marc marc
Le 21. 11. 18 à 16:33, Paul Allen a écrit :

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:21 PM marc marc wrote:
>
>     Le 21. 11. 18 à 13:39, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
>      > it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app
>     or sms.
>
>     payment:sms=yes or payment:sms=<the number to send the sms to>
>     payment:<appname>=yes
>
>      > ref:payment:app=12345
>      > ref:payment:sms=12345
>
>     ref=12345 look enough, isn't it ?
>
> No.  

I already have trouble imagining that there are mobile apps so badly
made that it asks the user to transcribe the parking ref instead
of finding it by geolocation
but for those apps, it seems more convenient to me to use
payment:<appname>=<the number the app need>

<about a different ref for each payment method>
> ALL of them might be possible

might ? of course ! but does this situation exist or it's it's purely
fictional ?
of course we can put several ref:<target1> ref:<target2> on all parking
of the planet just in case another entity would designate this parking
lot with another ref... but if the majority of car parks have only one
reference, their operator's ref, it seems to me to bring no advantage to
use several ref:*=* over using ref=* without suffix and add suffixes
only when necessary.
In this case, the suffix should be the same between the payment key
and the ref key like payment:sms=yes with ref:sms=*
not payment:sms=yes with ref:payement-by-sms=*

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Paul Allen
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:04 PM marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

I already have trouble imagining that there are mobile apps so badly
made that it asks the user to transcribe the parking ref instead
of finding it by geolocation

Then you have not tried as many badly-designed apps as I have.  None of them were for parking,
but they were all badly designed.  Anyway, a parking app might offer alternatives to geolocation for
those with stupid phones rather than smart phones.  And for people who prefer not to face a parking
fine because bad weather meant they couldn't get a GPS lock.

but for those apps, it seems more convenient to me to use
payment:<appname>=<the number the app need>

That's one possibility.  It is better than ref=12345 and  you have to guess whether or not that
ref is an SMS payment number, and whether you send an SMS to 12345 or you send an SMS to
some other number quoting 12345 in the body.

<about a different ref for each payment method>
> ALL of them might be possible

might ? of course ! but does this situation exist or it's it's purely
fictional ?

All of them might be possible because older technology hangs around.  And some people don't
adopt new technology.  So it may be possible to pay by SMS because that was set up years ago
and some people don't have phones capable of anything better.  It may be possible to pay by app,
but some people may not have the app installed and the signal may be too weak to install it at that
moment.  It may be possible to pay by NFC, but not everyone has a phone with that capability.  So
all of those alternatives might be possible at the same car park, along with machines accepting coins
and debit cards.  Coin payments are likely to go away in the future because they're a temptation to
break into the vending machines but other payment methods will hang around a lot longer.

of course we can put several ref:<target1> ref:<target2> on all parking
of the planet just in case another entity would designate this parking
lot with another ref... but if the majority of car parks have only one
reference, their operator's ref, it seems to me to bring no advantage to
use several ref:*=* over using ref=* without suffix and add suffixes
only when necessary.

I wasn't suggesting tagging every possible option in advance.  Just anticipating what might happen
in the future by not overloading the already-overloaded ref=*.  Operators do have unique references
for car parks.  Several payment options may be available.  Using ref=* on a first-come, first-served
basis is not helpful ("Of course it means the SMS number because I mapped that first and added
NFC later.")  If we're going to have ref:*=* for other payment methods it makes no sense to
appropriate ref=* for just one of those methods, especially when ref=* is better reserved for the
operator's unique reference for the car park (if there is one).  We shouldn't have to GUESS what
a bare ref=* means for any particular car park, which is what you appear to be suggesting.

In this case, the suffix should be the same between the payment key
and the ref key like payment:sms=yes with ref:sms=*
not payment:sms=yes with ref:payement-by-sms=*

That seems sensible.  What I wouldn't want to see is "ref=12345 means the pay-by-sms reference
UNLESS it means the operator's unique reference and you'll have to guess which it is."  Nor do I
want to see "ref=12345 is the pay-by-sms reference but ref:nfc is the pay-by-nfc reference because
we didn't anticipate future needs and anyway a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

--
Paul


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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Marc Gemis
In reply to this post by marc marc
> I already have trouble imagining that there are mobile apps so badly
> made that it asks the user to transcribe the parking ref instead
> of finding it by geolocation

They do geolocation and suggest the ref. However, in some cases they
suggest the ref of a neighbouring zone. That zone can have a different
fee.
Hence the need to verify and correct the code manually.

Furthermore some apps (4411.be) also allow you to pay in underground
parkings where geolocation will not work.


m.

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Philip Barnes
In reply to this post by Michael Brandtner


On 21 November 2018 12:45:30 GMT, Michael Brandtner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag,
>20.November 2018:
>
>> I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to
>me implies using your phone for contactless payment.
>But wouldn't that be payment:contactless? 
>
>> The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
>So your suggestion is payment:pay_by_phone and ref:pay_by_phone?  

That is correct, pay by phone is the normal English usage.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

bkil
payment:sms=yes
payment:WhateverPayApp=yes
contact:sms=<phone number to send>
ref:payment=<code to send>

As an alternative, ref:sms=* would also work for me, though I think
it's redundant if the code is the same for all payment options.
ref:payment:sms=* sounds a bit excessive, but would be the most
correct tagging. However, OSM strives for consistency and
mapper-friendliness more than "correct" tagging in most cases, so I.

I would definitely mark the exact payment variety, like

* payment:sms=*,
* payment:app=* or even better payment:WhateverPayApp=*,
* payment:mastercard_contactless=*.

I don't recommend using payment:pay_by_phone=* or
payment:contactless=* due to the sheer number of incompatible
different payment solutions (see wiki). It sounds worse to me than
payment:debit_cards=* that many disapprove of, while I do use
payment:debit_cards=* myself. I actually wanted to bring this up in a
new topic recently:

>> payment:contactless=*
Contactless payment on Wikipedia and Contactless smart card on Wikipedia
Used to indicate that a venue has 'contactless' (RFID/NFC-based) bank
card readers. You may consider adding the precise variety of
contactless smart card accepted: payment:expresspay=*,
payment:mastercard_contactless=* (formerly payment:paypass=*),
payment:visa_contactless=* (alternatively payment:paywave=*),
payment:quickpass=*, payment:quicpay=* (overseas J/Speedy, commonly
payment:QUICPay=*), payment:rupay_contactless=*, payment:zip=*,
payment:mifare=*
(wikipedia:en:MIFARE#Places_that_use_MIFARE_products),
payment:felica=*(wikipedia:en:FeliCa#Card_usage), payment:wechat=*
(wikipedia:en:WeChat#WeChat_Pay_payment_services), payment:alipay=*
(wikipedia:en:Alipay#Comparison_with_other_payment_systems),
payment:venmo=*. Not to be confused with contactless electronic
variants of payment:meal_vouchers=* and payment:electronic_purses=*
that are used in-house at many places. <<

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:29 AM Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 21 November 2018 12:45:30 GMT, Michael Brandtner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >Philip Barnes <[hidden email]> schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag,
> >20.November 2018:
> >
> >> I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to
> >me implies using your phone for contactless payment.
> >But wouldn't that be payment:contactless?
> >
> >> The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
> >So your suggestion is payment:pay_by_phone and ref:pay_by_phone?
>
> That is correct, pay by phone is the normal English usage.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Sergio Manzi

Sorry, but it should be:

payment:sms=yes
payment:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="sms:WhateverPayApp=yes">sms:WhateverPayApp=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=<phone number to send>
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=<code to send>

because, sooner or later, multiple payment options/clearingouse/apps could be supported and each should have its info.

The "ref:" could be go, IMHO...

Cheers,

Sergio Manzi


On 2018-11-28 21:07, bkil wrote:
payment:sms=yes
payment:WhateverPayApp=yes
contact:sms=<phone number to send>
ref:payment=<code to send>

As an alternative, ref:sms=* would also work for me, though I think
it's redundant if the code is the same for all payment options.
ref:payment:sms=* sounds a bit excessive, but would be the most
correct tagging. However, OSM strives for consistency and
mapper-friendliness more than "correct" tagging in most cases, so I.

I would definitely mark the exact payment variety, like

* payment:sms=*,
* payment:app=* or even better payment:WhateverPayApp=*,
* payment:mastercard_contactless=*.

I don't recommend using payment:pay_by_phone=* or
payment:contactless=* due to the sheer number of incompatible
different payment solutions (see wiki). It sounds worse to me than
payment:debit_cards=* that many disapprove of, while I do use
payment:debit_cards=* myself. I actually wanted to bring this up in a
new topic recently:

payment:contactless=*
Contactless payment on Wikipedia and Contactless smart card on Wikipedia
Used to indicate that a venue has 'contactless' (RFID/NFC-based) bank
card readers. You may consider adding the precise variety of
contactless smart card accepted: payment:expresspay=*,
payment:mastercard_contactless=* (formerly payment:paypass=*),
payment:visa_contactless=* (alternatively payment:paywave=*),
payment:quickpass=*, payment:quicpay=* (overseas J/Speedy, commonly
payment:QUICPay=*), payment:rupay_contactless=*, payment:zip=*,
payment:mifare=*
(wikipedia:en:MIFARE#Places_that_use_MIFARE_products),
payment:felica=*(wikipedia:en:FeliCa#Card_usage), payment:wechat=*
(wikipedia:en:WeChat#WeChat_Pay_payment_services), payment:alipay=*
(wikipedia:en:Alipay#Comparison_with_other_payment_systems),
payment:venmo=*. Not to be confused with contactless electronic
variants of payment:meal_vouchers=* and payment:electronic_purses=*
that are used in-house at many places. <<

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:29 AM Philip Barnes [hidden email] wrote:


On 21 November 2018 12:45:30 GMT, Michael Brandtner [hidden email] wrote:
Philip Barnes [hidden email] schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag,
20.November 2018:

I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to
me implies using your phone for contactless payment.
But wouldn't that be payment:contactless?

The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
So your suggestion is payment:pay_by_phone and ref:pay_by_phone?
That is correct, pay by phone is the normal English usage.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Michael Brandtner
If I pay per SMS, then I don't pay per app. It doesn't make sense to have both in the same key. I do like bkil's suggestions but do think that the tags should be as specific as possible, even if that means to have multiple keys with the same value.

So for example:
payment:sms=yes
payment:AppName1=yes
payment:AppName2y=yes
ref:sms=12345
contact:sms=0127
ref:AppName1=12345
ref:AppName2=12345

This leads me to another interesting question: Should these be added to amenity=parking or to vending=parking_tickets? 
In my opinion it makes more sense to add them to the parking lot itself because I don't need the ticket machine if I use pay by phone. But the wiki only suggests payment=* keys for vending=parking_tickets, not for amenity=parking.


Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> schrieb am 21:15 Mittwoch, 28.November 2018:


Sorry, but it should be:
payment:sms=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=<phone number to send>
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=<code to send>
because, sooner or later, multiple payment options/clearingouse/apps could be supported and each should have its info.
The "ref:" could be go, IMHO...
Cheers,
Sergio Manzi

On 2018-11-28 21:07, bkil wrote:
payment:sms=yes
payment:WhateverPayApp=yes
contact:sms=<phone number to send>
ref:payment=<code to send>

As an alternative, ref:sms=* would also work for me, though I think
it's redundant if the code is the same for all payment options.
ref:payment:sms=* sounds a bit excessive, but would be the most
correct tagging. However, OSM strives for consistency and
mapper-friendliness more than "correct" tagging in most cases, so I.

I would definitely mark the exact payment variety, like

* payment:sms=*,
* payment:app=* or even better payment:WhateverPayApp=*,
* payment:mastercard_contactless=*.

I don't recommend using payment:pay_by_phone=* or
payment:contactless=* due to the sheer number of incompatible
different payment solutions (see wiki). It sounds worse to me than
payment:debit_cards=* that many disapprove of, while I do use
payment:debit_cards=* myself. I actually wanted to bring this up in a
new topic recently:

payment:contactless=*
Contactless payment on Wikipedia and Contactless smart card on Wikipedia
Used to indicate that a venue has 'contactless' (RFID/NFC-based) bank
card readers. You may consider adding the precise variety of
contactless smart card accepted: payment:expresspay=*,
payment:mastercard_contactless=* (formerly payment:paypass=*),
payment:visa_contactless=* (alternatively payment:paywave=*),
payment:quickpass=*, payment:quicpay=* (overseas J/Speedy, commonly
payment:QUICPay=*), payment:rupay_contactless=*, payment:zip=*,
payment:mifare=*
(wikipedia:en:MIFARE#Places_that_use_MIFARE_products),
payment:felica=*(wikipedia:en:FeliCa#Card_usage), payment:wechat=*
(wikipedia:en:WeChat#WeChat_Pay_payment_services), payment:alipay=*
(wikipedia:en:Alipay#Comparison_with_other_payment_systems),
payment:venmo=*. Not to be confused with contactless electronic
variants of payment:meal_vouchers=* and payment:electronic_purses=*
that are used in-house at many places. <<

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:29 AM Philip Barnes [hidden email] wrote:
On 21 November 2018 12:45:30 GMT, Michael Brandtner [hidden email] wrote:
Philip Barnes [hidden email] schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag,
20.November 2018:

I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to
me implies using your phone for contactless payment.
But wouldn't that be payment:contactless?

The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
So your suggestion is payment:pay_by_phone and ref:pay_by_phone?
That is correct, pay by phone is the normal English usage.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
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: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Sergio Manzi

Don't you see it possible that sms payment can be made through different clearinghouses/operators? Really?

Cheers!


On 2018-11-29 14:13, Michael Brandtner wrote:
If I pay per SMS, then I don't pay per app. It doesn't make sense to have both in the same key. I do like bkil's suggestions but do think that the tags should be as specific as possible, even if that means to have multiple keys with the same value.

So for example:
payment:sms=yes
payment:AppName1=yes
payment:AppName2y=yes
ref:sms=12345
contact:sms=0127
ref:AppName1=12345
ref:AppName2=12345

This leads me to another interesting question: Should these be added to amenity=parking or to vending=parking_tickets? 
In my opinion it makes more sense to add them to the parking lot itself because I don't need the ticket machine if I use pay by phone. But the wiki only suggests payment=* keys for vending=parking_tickets, not for amenity=parking.


Sergio Manzi [hidden email] schrieb am 21:15 Mittwoch, 28.November 2018:


Sorry, but it should be:
payment:sms=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=<phone number to send>
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=<code to send>
because, sooner or later, multiple payment options/clearingouse/apps could be supported and each should have its info.
The "ref:" could be go, IMHO...
Cheers,
Sergio Manzi

On 2018-11-28 21:07, bkil wrote:
payment:sms=yes
payment:WhateverPayApp=yes
contact:sms=<phone number to send>
ref:payment=<code to send>

As an alternative, ref:sms=* would also work for me, though I think
it's redundant if the code is the same for all payment options.
ref:payment:sms=* sounds a bit excessive, but would be the most
correct tagging. However, OSM strives for consistency and
mapper-friendliness more than "correct" tagging in most cases, so I.

I would definitely mark the exact payment variety, like

* payment:sms=*,
* payment:app=* or even better payment:WhateverPayApp=*,
* payment:mastercard_contactless=*.

I don't recommend using payment:pay_by_phone=* or
payment:contactless=* due to the sheer number of incompatible
different payment solutions (see wiki). It sounds worse to me than
payment:debit_cards=* that many disapprove of, while I do use
payment:debit_cards=* myself. I actually wanted to bring this up in a
new topic recently:

payment:contactless=*
Contactless payment on Wikipedia and Contactless smart card on Wikipedia
Used to indicate that a venue has 'contactless' (RFID/NFC-based) bank
card readers. You may consider adding the precise variety of
contactless smart card accepted: payment:expresspay=*,
payment:mastercard_contactless=* (formerly payment:paypass=*),
payment:visa_contactless=* (alternatively payment:paywave=*),
payment:quickpass=*, payment:quicpay=* (overseas J/Speedy, commonly
payment:QUICPay=*), payment:rupay_contactless=*, payment:zip=*,
payment:mifare=*
(wikipedia:en:MIFARE#Places_that_use_MIFARE_products),
payment:felica=*(wikipedia:en:FeliCa#Card_usage), payment:wechat=*
(wikipedia:en:WeChat#WeChat_Pay_payment_services), payment:alipay=*
(wikipedia:en:Alipay#Comparison_with_other_payment_systems),
payment:venmo=*. Not to be confused with contactless electronic
variants of payment:meal_vouchers=* and payment:electronic_purses=*
that are used in-house at many places. <<

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 9:29 AM Philip Barnes [hidden email] wrote:
On 21 November 2018 12:45:30 GMT, Michael Brandtner [hidden email] wrote:
Philip Barnes [hidden email] schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag,
20.November 2018:

I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to
me implies using your phone for contactless payment.
But wouldn't that be payment:contactless?

The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
So your suggestion is payment:pay_by_phone and ref:pay_by_phone?
That is correct, pay by phone is the normal English usage.

Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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



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

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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by bkil


sent from a phone

> On 28. Nov 2018, at 21:07, bkil <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't recommend using payment:pay_by_phone=* or
> payment:contactless=* due to the sheer number of incompatible
> different payment solutions (see wiki).


I agree, these are bad because there are too many alternative systems that would all fall into these categories, and the future will likely bring more.

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi


sent from a phone

On 28. Nov 2018, at 21:14, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:

payment:sms=yes
payment:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="sms:WhateverPayApp=yes">sms:WhateverPayApp=yes


+1


payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=<phone number to send>



Does not look very sustainable, are we going to mass retag all of these if the number changes? I agree it might be useful to have this information, but it shouldn’t need to be tagged on every instance where you can pay (unless the number is individual and not universal), e.g. it could be entered in the wiki.


payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=<code to send>



two times ‘payment’? Maybe payment:<a href="sms:ExampleApp:payment_ref=">sms:ExampleApp:payment_ref=

or ...code_to_send=*

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 29. Nov 2018, at 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=<phone number to send>



Does not look very sustainable, are we going to mass retag all of these if the number changes? I agree it might be useful to have this information, but it shouldn’t need to be tagged on every instance where you can pay (unless the number is individual and not universal), e.g. it could be entered in the wiki.


if it must be a tag, it should follow the established conventions, e.g. phone rather than contact. Apps usually do not expose or require a phone number 






payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=<code to send>




maybe just “ref”, unless it is different? We are using ref for example for bus stops where you can use this code to dynamically query an api for bus arrival times. As long as it is just one reference number, there’s no need to declare 5 levels of nested structures ;-)

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by dieterdreist

Hi Martin!

On 2018-11-29 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=<phone number to send>


Does not look very sustainable, are we going to mass retag all of these if the number changes? I agree it might be useful to have this information, but it shouldn’t need to be tagged on every instance where you can pay (unless the number is individual and not universal), e.g. it could be entered in the wiki.


I'm not familiar with the technology. If the phone number to use is always the same for a given app/service, I totally agree with you.


On 2018-11-29 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=<code to send>



two times ‘payment’? Maybe payment:<a href="sms:ExampleApp:payment_ref=" moz-do-not-send="true">sms:ExampleApp:payment_ref=

or ...code_to_send=*

Right! Too many payments! :-) To spare some bytes it could be: payment:<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="sms:ExampleApp:code=">sms:ExampleApp:code=<code to send>.  What do you think?

Cheers!

Sergio


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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Suggestion: ref:mobile_payment for amenity=parking

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 2018-11-29 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> maybe just “ref”, unless it is different? We are using ref for example for bus stops where you can use this code to dynamically query an api for bus arrival times. As long as it is just one reference number, there’s no need to declare 5 levels of nested structures ;-)
>
Different services/clearinghouses could require different codes... or not? :-/



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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
12