On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
1. That's not how it's been used currently
2. How would we ensure every mapper knows the difference?
3. Even if for some magical reason people understand the difference, how
many will bother checking that?
#4 how do
On 5/7/15 16:40 , Richard Z. wrote:
indeed my intention was to use contact:twitter exactly when
a company explicitly recommends it as a way to contact them whereas
twitter=* could be used to mean anything else.
1. That's not how it's been used currently
2. How would we ensure every mapper
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 01:31:52PM +0200, Andreas Goss wrote:
On 5/7/15 16:40 , Richard Z. wrote:
indeed my intention was to use contact:twitter exactly when
a company explicitly recommends it as a way to contact them whereas
twitter=* could be used to mean anything else.
1. That's not how
2015-05-07 16:40 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
people will not be more inclined to respond to enquiries via a certain
medium if we put a contact prefix in osm, or did I misunderstand you and
you propose to use both tags, one for their Twitter account and the other
if they react
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:37:41PM +0200, Andreas Goss wrote:
the verbosity may be unneeded for very simple things like phone
but is that true for everything covered by contact* ?
key:fax? key:twitter? key:vhf?
So what would you do with those tags?
If we don't use contact for phone, it
Am 07.05.2015 um 13:50 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
then contact:twitter is also flat
out wrong, because many companies will not reply and maybe not even read
what you tweet them.
this is one of the reasons why contact:twitter is much better then
twitter=* because the first
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 04:20:22PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 07.05.2015 um 13:50 schrieb Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
then contact:twitter is also flat
out wrong, because many companies will not reply and maybe not even read
what you tweet them.
this is one of
On 07/05/15 15:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Likewise contact:website is reasonably clear while website=* may or
may not offer a contact method.
indeed, there are lots of reasons why someone will visit a website and
contact is only a subset of them.
In addition most companies will
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 06:20:42PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2015-05-05 17:21 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
the verbosity may be unneeded for very simple things like phone
but is that true for everything covered by contact* ?
key:fax? key:twitter? key:vhf?
have
e.g. a general contact telephone number and,
say, an emergency or reservations or god-knows-what other telephone number.
Yeah, but the obvious simple solution for that is a phone:emergency,
phone:reception or whatever comes up often.
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
the verbosity may be unneeded for very simple things like phone
but is that true for everything covered by contact* ?
key:fax? key:twitter? key:vhf?
So what would you do with those tags?
If we don't use contact for phone, it makes no sense at all to use it
for something like social media etc.
2015-05-06 15:33 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
Btw anyone knows what phone=3631 is ?
3631 is the short (local) phone number to contact La Poste, the postal
services in France.
The large number of occurences is from an opendata import.
___
On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 11:17:35AM -0400, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
The reason is that the contact: tags are unnecessarily verbose (we
should use simpler tags whenever possible) and the simpler tags are
much more popular (there are 98865 contact:phone tags but 490328 phone
tags). Why do we need
2015-05-05 17:21 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
the verbosity may be unneeded for very simple things like phone
but is that true for everything covered by contact* ?
key:fax? key:twitter? key:vhf?
have you seen taginfo?
906 vhf
182 vhf_channel
73 waterway:vhf_channel
36
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone
attempted an undiscussed mechanical edit of this in the past and got
reverted. Similar examples are power=sub_station, power=station,
oneway=true, oneway=1, oneway=-1, etc. There tends to be a widespread
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com
wrote:
I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
set of tags (phone, website, etc.) I am not proposing that anyone do
any mechanical
On 3 May 2015 at 21:25, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
(OSM ought to allow
commas in values to allow for more than one website or phone number).
It is suggested that semicolons are used to separate multiple data.
--
Mike.
@millomweb
Hi,
On 05/03/2015 05:17 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
set of tags (phone, website, etc.)
IIRC when the contact:* stuff was proposed, the reasons for it were that
it
I am proposing that the contact: set of tags (contact:phone,
contact:website, etc.) be depreciated and replaced with the simpler
set of tags (phone, website, etc.) I am not proposing that anyone do
any mechanical edits.
The reason is that the contact: tags are unnecessarily verbose (we
should use
I like the `contact:*` tags, but only because it simplifies a few things in the
iD editor. When copying and pasting an object, we really want to remove the
name/address/contactinfo so that the pasted object doesn’t have the same values.
If all the custom keys are grouped under
On 3 May 2015 at 17:05, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com wrote:
I like the `contact:*` tags, but only because it simplifies a few things
in the iD editor. When copying and pasting an object, we really want to
remove the name/address/contactinfo so that the pasted object doesn’t have
the
21 matches
Mail list logo
