Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Hello all,I step back from my proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone_2 .CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Sören Reinecke via Tagging To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Sören Reinecke > (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with the same meaning you need very very good reasons)As a reminder how you voted on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone#Voting :I oppose this proposal. -- I am against deprecating a widely used tagging --voschix (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2019Note that I tried to deprecate "contact:phone" which is by the way used less but you and many others voted against my first proposal to deprecate "contact:phone".Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram---- Original Message ----Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Volker Schmidt To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.-1 (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with the same meaning you need very very good reasons) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
MARLIN LUKE wrote: > Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation > from outsiders (myself included) With the best will in the world, I don't think it's productive or welcoming to encourage outsiders to think that they should come into OSM and tell everyone that 2 million users should stop using an intuitive, plain-English tag that has been in use for over 10 years, entirely for abstruse, unproven benefit. OSM wants more participation from outsiders, absolutely. We want you to come and map the world. Starting a long involved discussion about not using the word "phone" to tag phone numbers is not "mapping the world". It is distracting people, newcomers included, from the task of mapping the world. It is distracting developers from important work on making tools easier for newbie mappers. It is, basically, Brandolini's law in action: "the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it". Please participate. Please participate by _mapping_. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On 05/12/19 00:41, Sören Reinecke via Tagging wrote: This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. Both proposals are to depreciate one key in favour of another. The general opinion looks to be .. no. As you probably don't believe that .. go ahead and have your vote and get it over with. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
sent from a phone >> On 4. Dec 2019, at 16:53, Sören Reinecke wrote: > > > If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? > > In practical terms we make using OSM data one little step easier because they > do not need to watch out for possible two or more keys and to risk to forget > one. you are significantly overestimating the power of wiki voting. In the few cases where tags were deprecated it generally didn’t mean these tags have vanished. Even landuse=farm still has a lot of uses, many years after its deprecation. I think it is discouraged since 2014. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
> And make sure osm wikidata handle namespace schemas?Implementing such handling can be done by the developers of mapping tools (JOSM, iD). I also thought about this: Editors converting wrong tags to the right tags e.g. `phone` to `contact:phone`. I'm also happy with shorthands as long as they are handled property; converting them. But this is one of the ideas behind presets. We can do a step further and can do that also for manual typing of keys into a text field with the option to toggle this feature.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Topographe Fou To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: I totally agree. Soren and all others members don't disserve such comment. OSM is a project where everyone can submit its point of view and ask for voting. Even if some think they own the truth.Having said that I think the main topic has not been adressed. For me contact is a namespace. I would prefer a proposition to say "phone key is a shortcut of contact:phone. (Same for email and others)". As such, they shall be handled the same." . And make sure osm wikidata handle namespace schemas ? LeTopographeFou De: luke.mar...@viacesi.frEnvoyé: 4 décembre 2019 5:52 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone) Hi there, Disclaimer: -I don't have much experience with OSM. -I find the proposition of unifying the usage quite logical. -Now that I've read some responses, I understand why the community could be against. However: I'm amazed at how harsh people are against Sören. He's been putting some time to help, and the reversal of the proposal made sense when considering the voters' explanations on the wiki page. Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation from outsiders (myself included) And I'm not speaking about the x-th response, the firsts were already aggressive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
I totally agree. Soren and all others members don't disserve such comment. OSM is a project where everyone can submit its point of view and ask for voting. Even if some think they own the truth.Having said that I think the main topic has not been adressed. For me contact is a namespace. I would prefer a proposition to say "phone key is a shortcut of contact:phone. (Same for email and others)". As such, they shall be handled the same." . And make sure osm wikidata handle namespace schemas ? LeTopographeFou De: luke.mar...@viacesi.frEnvoyé: 4 décembre 2019 5:52 PMÀ: tagging@openstreetmap.orgRépondre à: tagging@openstreetmap.orgObjet: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone) Hi there, Disclaimer: -I don't have much experience with OSM. -I find the proposition of unifying the usage quite logical. -Now that I've read some responses, I understand why the community could be against. However: I'm amazed at how harsh people are against Sören. He's been putting some time to help, and the reversal of the proposal made sense when considering the voters' explanations on the wiki page. Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation from outsiders (myself included) And I'm not speaking about the x-th response, the firsts were already aggressive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Welcome Martin,a mailing list like this is probably not the right place to get into the community. Instead head over to a group on Reddit, Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, Discord, IRC, Matrix etc.For Telegram see here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_centric_Telegram_accountsIf you tell me the country and the communication platform you prefer I can help you. Alternatively head over to https://wiki.osm.org and type in the country you're living in in the search bar. You probably find a list of local communities in your country there.My e-mail address: tilmanreine...@yahoo.deMy Telegram account: @valornaramMy OSM account: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Valor%20NaramCheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: MARLIN LUKE To: Sören Reinecke via Tagging CC: Hi there, Disclaimer: -I don't have much experience with OSM. -I find the proposition of unifying the usage quite logical. -Now that I've read some responses, I understand why the community could be against. However: I'm amazed at how harsh people are against Sören. He's been putting some time to help, and the reversal of the proposal made sense when considering the voters' explanations on the wiki page. Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation from outsiders (myself included) And I'm not speaking about the x-th response, the firsts were already aggressive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Hi there, Disclaimer: -I don't have much experience with OSM. -I find the proposition of unifying the usage quite logical. -Now that I've read some responses, I understand why the community could be against. However: I'm amazed at how harsh people are against Sören. He's been putting some time to help, and the reversal of the proposal made sense when considering the voters' explanations on the wiki page. Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation from outsiders (myself included) And I'm not speaking about the x-th response, the firsts were already aggressive. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
> What part of 'No' don't you understand?Everything. Again: I proposed the deprecation of "contact:phone" in first place which has failed because the major tagging community decided so.Everything went logical according to my statement. In this row I try to propose the deprecation of "phone" and now you're saying to me that OSM does not do deprecations of well-used tags? While this statement is completely understandable I do not understand why the community was against deprecating "contact:phone", can you tell me that?My statement: Two tags for the same purpose are not elegant and makes the use of OSM data harder.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message ----Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Chris Hill To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: On 04/12/2019 13:41, Sören Reinecke via Tagging wrote:> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.>>OSM doesn't do deprecation of a well-used tag. It doesn't do homogenisation for the sake of it. It doesn't do a new dressed-up vote to get around a failed vote. You put it forward as a plan and it got rejected. To simply reverse the polarity of the vote and call it a new vote is a joke. Just let this go, please.What part of 'No' don't you understand? --cheersChris Hill (chillly)___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Sorry, Soeren, when you are talking about two competing tagging methods for the same thing, both of which have large existing usage, deprecating one of them does not at all help you to achieve what your goal - they will remain in use in parallel. It would be a different story if you were to deprecate a little-used tag, where there is a chance to re-tag manually the deprecated tags. Another thing: OSM is full of multiple-tagging options - please do not try to eliminate them, unless they are really small (use-wise) tags and yo can offer to eliminate the minority tagging scheme. Volker On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 16:54, Sören Reinecke via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags? > > This would be illogical. I think you did not get my point: I and others do > not want multiple tags for one purpose. My goal therefore is to deprecate > ONE of them. I do not care, if its "contact:phone" or "phone" we deprecate > in the end. > > > If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? > > In practical terms we make using OSM data one little step easier because > they do not need to watch out for possible two or more keys and to risk to > forget one. > > Cheers > > Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram > > > Original Message > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone) > From: Martin Koppenhoefer > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > CC: Sören Reinecke > > > > > Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag. > > > > if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags? > If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? > > Cheers > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 16:11, Sören Reinecke via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Others have also made sensible arguments against this. > > What kind of points? Am I something missing? > You appear to be missing EVERYTHING. Re-read the responses to this thread. Then try to understand them. People reject your objective no matter which tag you deprecate. If nothing else, try to comprehend that there is no support here and a lot of opposition. Your proposal WILL fail and all you're doing is wasting everybody's time. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
> Others have also made sensible arguments against this.What kind of points? Am I something missing?Overview:- My first proposal: Deprecating "contact:phone" - rejected by community- Reason: "contact" prefix is more orthogonal- My second proposal: Deprecating "phone" - ongoing discussion- We can live with two keys which have the same purpose - My response: Developers and data users need to write so called "schemes". The logic behind it: One scheme, one purpose. Two tags for the exactly same purpose destroys that idea and makes the use of OSM data harder. If we want to support two tags which are for the same purpose then we need to add every exception we can imagine. So we risk to reduce the quality of our development, bugs occur and it's simply not abstract working which is the idea behind programming and which makes programs more universal useable. - "phone" is x-times more used than "contact:phone"- My answer: That's why I wanted to deprecate the less used "contact:phone" in first row and it failed due to to many oppose votes. Don't blame me with arguments why we should do not deprecate "phone". You had your chance to vote for the deprecation of "contact:phone" in favor of the more used "phone" key which I would have then promoted if my first proposal had succeeded.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Paul Allen To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:42, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?Sensible points. Others have also made sensible arguments against this. There is nosign, from his responses, that any of this is getting through to him. I suggest we stopresponding here, leave him to it, and then just vote against his proposal. Either way, mostpeople ARE going to vote against it, but if we stop responding here that will keep the noisedown.-- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
> if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?This would be illogical. I think you did not get my point: I and others do not want multiple tags for one purpose. My goal therefore is to deprecate ONE of them. I do not care, if its "contact:phone" or "phone" we deprecate in the end.> If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?In practical terms we make using OSM data one little step easier because they do not need to watch out for possible two or more keys and to risk to forget one.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message --------Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Sören Reinecke Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org>:Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag.if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?CheersMartin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On 04/12/2019 13:41, Sören Reinecke via Tagging wrote: This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. OSM doesn't do deprecation of a well-used tag. It doesn't do homogenisation for the sake of it. It doesn't do a new dressed-up vote to get around a failed vote. You put it forward as a plan and it got rejected. To simply reverse the polarity of the vote and call it a new vote is a joke. Just let this go, please. What part of 'No' don't you understand? -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Sorry to have caused confusion: I am against deprecating either of the two alternatives for the same reason. Data consumers will have to live with that.. On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:42, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags? >> If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? >> > > Sensible points. Others have also made sensible arguments against this. > There is no > sign, from his responses, that any of this is getting through to him. I > suggest we stop > responding here, leave him to it, and then just vote against his > proposal. Either way, most > people ARE going to vote against it, but if we stop responding here that > will keep the noise > down. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags? > If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? > Sensible points. Others have also made sensible arguments against this. There is no sign, from his responses, that any of this is getting through to him. I suggest we stop responding here, leave him to it, and then just vote against his proposal. Either way, most people ARE going to vote against it, but if we stop responding here that will keep the noise down. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag. if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags? If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
> (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with the same meaning you need very very good reasons)As a reminder how you voted on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone#Voting :I oppose this proposal. -- I am against deprecating a widely used tagging --voschix (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2019Note that I tried to deprecate "contact:phone" which is by the way used less but you and many others voted against my first proposal to deprecate "contact:phone".Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message ----Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Volker Schmidt To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.-1 (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with the same meaning you need very very good reasons) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Some asked me to restore the old version, the new version which I want to vote on can be found here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone_2 id="-x-evo-selection-start-marker"> -Original Message- From: S??ren Reinecke via Tagging Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < tagging@openstreetmap.org> To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org Cc: S??ren Reinecke Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:02:42 +0100 Hello again, now the other way around: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone . I did some changes on the content level following Martin Koppenhoefer's suggestions ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048818.html ). This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have two keys for the exact same purpose in use. Cheers S??ren Reinecke alias Valor Naram ___Tagging mailing listtagg...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Volker Schmidt : > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >>> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. >>> >> > (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with > the same meaning you need very very good reasons) > I believe in effect it would deprecate deprecation > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Are we going to have more individual votings about each of contact:website, contact:fax, contact:dovecote, ... ? > > Surely we know from previous discussions that > >- some people prefer using "phone" as a key, >- some people prefer "contact:phone" > > as has been written by Andy, reiterating this will probably not lead to anything meaningful. And along the lines of Volker's contribution, deprecating the tag with significantly more usage and continuous growth does not seem in line with how OSM tagging works in general, where a vote with the feet is generally considered more important than the outcome of some wiki voting. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. >> > -1 (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with the same meaning you need very very good reasons) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. > -1 -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. -Original Message- From: Paul Allen Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < tagging@openstreetmap.org> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:25:14 + On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:19, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > > It'd also be good to see an explanation of why it's worth the > time even going through this again - haven't we all got better > things to do? > +1 -- Paul ___Tagging mailing listtagg...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:19, Andy Townsend wrote: It'd also be good to see an explanation of why it's worth the time even > going through this again - haven't we all got better things to do? > +1 -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
On 04/12/2019 12:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sören Reinecke wrote: This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have two keys for the exact same purpose in use. Please just kill me now. Ahem. Perhaps, Sören, it would help if you explained in a bit more detail why you think it's a good idea to have yet another vote on this? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone is largely content-free, apart from the "how we format phone numbers" part (which is I believe largely agreed and common to both). If you could explain why it is "bad to have two keys for the exact same purpose in use" in that proposal it would stand much more chance of not being rejected or (more likely) just ignored. Historically OpenStreetMap, with free-form tagging, has succeeded where other more codified approaches have failed. That isn't unique - think Wikipedia vs Nupedia. Historically also OSM has tried to make life easy for mappers rather than data consumers - the idea being that 1000 mapped items (some with tags that may need a bit of correction or merging later) is better than 100 perfectly tagged ones with 900 unmapped. It'd also be good to see an explanation of why it's worth the time even going through this again - haven't we all got better things to do? Surely we know from previous discussions that * some people prefer using "phone" as a key, * some people prefer "contact:phone" * in the absence of other information they mean exactly the same thing * it's trivial for renderers and other data consumers to treat them exactly the same Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Did this, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone/content and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone . But anyway I'm not quite happy about the section https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone/content#Tagging_different_numbers_for_different_countries . It's too long and maybe also too complicated and has two main paragraphs which I want to boil down to what they mean. Any ideas? Cheers S??ren Reinecke alias Valor Naram ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Sören Reinecke wrote: > This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag > for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is > not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have > two keys for the exact same purpose in use. Please just kill me now. Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:43 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke < tilmanreine...@yahoo.de>: > Hi Martin and others, > > The new proposal overwrites the old one. There's just the new content > except the section "Vote 1". What I can do is putting everything in the > "content" section into a new page. It is what you - Martin - suggested, > outsourcing the "content" section? Yes, it would be preferable to make a new page and copy the relevant stuff over. After this, you should put the first voting to the version after the voting (for documentation reasons). Thank you, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Hi Martin and others,The new proposal overwrites the old one. There's just the new content except the section "Vote 1". What I can do is putting everything in the "content" section into a new page. It is what you - Martin - suggested, outsourcing the "content" section?CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message ----Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Sören Reinecke Sören, may I suggest you set up a new page for the new proposal? It is already a very long page, and readability would certainly benefit from a more streamlined proposal page.CheersMartin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Sören, may I suggest you set up a new page for the new proposal? It is already a very long page, and readability would certainly benefit from a more streamlined proposal page. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)
Hello again, now the other way around: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone . I did some changes on the content level following Martin Koppenhoefer's suggestions ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048818.html ). This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have two keys for the exact same purpose in use. Cheers S??ren Reinecke alias Valor Naram ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
