Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 12:58, Daniele Santini wrote: > I updated the proposal page with the new tags: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up > Check it out. > The final image on your proposal, of a PayPoint sign, reminded me of yet another complication (at least in the UK). Along with the yellow-and-black PayPoint logo is a green-and-white Top-Up logo. I have so far been unable to find much detail on the Top-Up logo, but here's what I have found. 1. The Top-Up logo indicates a place which sells top-ups for mobile phones and nothing further may be inferred. Yes, if it's a PayPoint system you can top up your electricity key and pay your gas bill as well as top up youir mobile phone, but the Top-Up logo only guarantees you can top up your mobile there. 2) It appears that Top-Up may be some sort of agreement between several payment processors. I have not found anything indicating who may display the logo but I know that both PayPoint and Payzone networks use it, as does the Tesco supermarket chain. Whether it's a formal consortium or not is something I have not been able to determine. The UK's 4 major Mobile Network Operators and many of the virtual MNOs simply say that you can top up their phones where you see the Top-Up logo. See, for example, https://ee.co.uk/help/help-new/billing-usage-and-top-up/topping-up-and-balance/how-can-i-top-up-my-phone#article-title-5 So prepaid_top_up:network=top-up. Ugh! And it's probably not a network as such but an agreement amongst payment processors and MNOs. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
I updated the proposal page with the new tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up Check it out. Kind regards So, basing on these problems, we could change the proposal to: > - prepaid_top_up= -> to specify the type of services whose top-ups > are sold (like mobile_phone, public_transport, energy, credit_card, ...) > - prepaid_top_up:brand= -> for brand whose top-ups are sold (like > Vodafone); this would follow the same rules of brand=* > - prepaid_top_up:network= -> for payment networks that allow to > top up other services (like PayPoint); this would follow the rules of > network=* > -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 19:04, Daniele Santini wrote:
> If I understood correctly from the mailing list networks like PayPoint are
> different, they allow you to top up prepaid credit and to pay other things
> (where you put the money in). So I don't think payment:* is correct here.
>
More on the mechanics of PayPoint. I don't claim to know everything it
does, but this is from
personal experience and from minimal research. So, in no particular
order...
1). Whatever it is I am paying for using PayPoint (topping up a phone,
paying a gas bill, whatever) I
can pay using cash, or a credit card, or a debit card. Or, if necessary, a
mix ("I don't have enough in
cash or in my bank account, so take this money and debit the remainder from
this card").
2) PayPoint allows me to top up my mobile. The machine dispenses a voucher
with a number I can
then text to the mobile network operator. It used to be the case (and
maybe still is) that the network
operator will provide an ID card on request: that card gets swiped, you
make the payment and your
phone gets topped up automagically.
3) PayPoint allows me to top up my electricity key. The key is inserted
into a machine which loads
credit onto it, then I put the key in my meter. In fact, it appears that
PayPoint is the only way I can
top up my meter key. After taking a further look at their website, it
appearsthat meter top-ups, rather
than phone top-ups, were how they got started and they've since expanded
into all the other stuff.
4) PayPoint allows me to pay some or all of my gas bill. I hand over my
payment card (supplied to
me by my gas provider) which is read and the amount I hand over in cash or
have debited from my
credit/debit card is transferred to my gas supplier with a note of my
customer account ID read from
the card.
5) As 4 but a payment (in whole or in part) to my water provider (utilizing
a card supplied by my
water provider). If I didn't have an electricity meter key then I could
pay all/part of my electricity bill
this way. This may not apply to all utility companies but it does apply to
many of the major ones.
6) I believe regular payments, arranged with utilities, can be paid this
way. I.e., rather than a
standing order I could use PayPoint once a month.
7) At PayPoint I can top up phones with any of the UK's four main mobile
network operators
(EE, Three, O2 and Vodafone). I don't think I can top up Tesco Mobile
there, even though
Tesco Mobile makes use of O2's network. Tesco doesn't have PayPoint in its
stores and
refused even to tell me why when I queried their head office, so I doubt
they have any sort
of arrangement with PayPoint. I don't know what the situation is with any
of the hundreds
of other virtual mobile network operators in the UK because I don't use any
of them.
8) Exactly what else I could pay for I am unsure since PayPoint don't
provide a full list. TV licence
is one of them. Topping up an Amazon account using cash is another (if you
have a credit/
debit card anyway you'd probably use those when purchasing online, but if
all you have is cash then
this is the way to do it).
9) So PayPoint handles top-ups, payments and pre-payments (by my
definition, a top-up is something
you pay for when you need it; pre-payments are contractually-scheduled
regular payments).
10) The PayPoint stuff is (at least these days) integrated with EPOS at the
shop. I get my electricity
key topped up, get a phone top-up, pay my gas bill and buy a six-pack of
beer and the EPOS
presents me with a combined total that I pay for in a single transaction (I
insert my debit card
just once, at the end). I don't know if PayPoint handles the part of the
transaction for goods
sold directly by the shop or if that's handed off to a different
transaction processor, but it appears
probable from their ambiguous blurb that PayPoint processes the entire
transaction.
11) Apart from the purposes of this discussion, I don't need a list of what
I could pay for with
PayPoint (whether on the PayPoint website, or held in the OSM database, or
held in an
auxiliary database) because I will already have been informed by the
goods/service supplier
that I can pay using PayPoint. If the goods/service supplier has not
explicitly stated that I
can use PayPoint then I can't. OTOH, some supermarket chains that don't
partner with
PayPoint offer top-up services for the mobile network operators and some of
the virtual
ones. Which complicates tagging somewhat, since you have to cater for both
situations.
12) None of this may apply in some (perhaps even most) other countries.
But it's likely to be
only a matter of time (PayPoint is already operating in Romania). PayPoint
is fulfilling a need and
life would be a lot more complicated without them. They say that their
network is bigger than
all of the UK's banks, post offices and supermarkets combined. If PayPoint
themselves don't
start operating in other countries it's likely somebody else will start
operations using
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
> "phone" is better than "prepaid" because prepaid doesn't tell you whether > this is about phone, public transport, parking, drinks, or whatever. > This tag is not only about phones. It includes prepaid public transport cards, prepaid credit cards, ... Otherwise the prepaid_top_up= would not be necessary! > The term "network" as intended for payment networks is not clear in this > context. At least it should be payment-network if it cannot be expressed > differently. For payment systems and methods there are already established > tags: > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=payment > If I understand correctly from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment the payment:* keys specify which payment network can be used to pay (where you take the money from). If I understood correctly from the mailing list networks like PayPoint are different, they allow you to top up prepaid credit and to pay other things (where you put the money in). So I don't think payment:* is correct here. -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Am Do., 27. Dez. 2018 um 19:40 Uhr schrieb Daniele Santini < danysa...@gmail.com>: > Summarizing the problems of the top_up:[:]=yes/no approach: > - Some networks (like PayPoint) allow top-up more than one service (mobile > phone, public transport, ...) > - The scheme has a over-namespacing problem because both the second and > the third subkeys could be values > - The name "top_up" can be confused with drink refill and is unclear for > people of countries where prepaid services are not widespread > - Brand names are likely to use characters such as upper-case letters or > non-ASCII characters that should be avoided in keys where possible > > So, basing on these problems, we could change the proposal to: > - prepaid_top_up= -> to specify the type of services whose top-ups > are sold (like mobile_phone, public_transport, energy, credit_card, ...) > - prepaid_top_up:brand= -> for brand whose top-ups are sold (like > Vodafone); this would follow the same rules of brand=* > - prepaid_top_up:network= -> for payment networks that allow to > top up other services (like PayPoint); this would follow the rules of > network=* > "phone" is better than "prepaid" because prepaid doesn't tell you whether this is about phone, public transport, parking, drinks, or whatever. If a key is intended as a list, I would use the plural, e.g. brands=a;b;c The term "network" as intended for payment networks is not clear in this context. At least it should be payment-network if it cannot be expressed differently. For payment systems and methods there are already established tags: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=payment Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Summarizing the problems of the top_up:[:]=yes/no approach: - Some networks (like PayPoint) allow top-up more than one service (mobile phone, public transport, ...) - The scheme has a over-namespacing problem because both the second and the third subkeys could be values - The name "top_up" can be confused with drink refill and is unclear for people of countries where prepaid services are not widespread - Brand names are likely to use characters such as upper-case letters or non-ASCII characters that should be avoided in keys where possible So, basing on these problems, we could change the proposal to: - prepaid_top_up= -> to specify the type of services whose top-ups are sold (like mobile_phone, public_transport, energy, credit_card, ...) - prepaid_top_up:brand= -> for brand whose top-ups are sold (like Vodafone); this would follow the same rules of brand=* - prepaid_top_up:network= -> for payment networks that allow to top up other services (like PayPoint); this would follow the rules of network=* Some usage examples would be: - "prepaid_top_up"="transport"+"prepaid_top_up:network"="Opal" -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Opal_Card_Top_up_point.jpg - "prepaid_top_up"="mobile_phone"+"prepaid_top_up:brand"="Digicel;LIME" -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bridgetown_top-up.jpg This would address all the problems: - networks with multiple services can be tagged with "prepaid_top_up"="mobile_phone;public_transport"+"prepaid_top_up:network"="PayPoint" - the over-namespacing problem is gone - "prepaid_top_up" can't be misunderstood - brand names are now in the value field If there are no objections I will update the proposal page with these tags. PS: someone wrote that "if the amount is pre-paid, it is not a credit card". When talking of credit card I refer to prepaid (or "preloaded") credit cards (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card#Prepaid_cards and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepayment_for_service ). Kind regards -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Am 27.12.2018 um 15:25 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > > On 27. Dec 2018, at 11:44, Simon Poole wrote: > >>> much easier to evaluate than one like: >>> some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar >> This is being directly disingenuous, because what is a actually being >> proposed is >> >> characteristic_I_need_to_know:random_string=yes >> >> 1000+ more random strings. > > usually what you want to know is whether you can top up your mobile phone, > not if any kind of top ups are provided, Which can be provided by a simple list including the providers name (not to mention that this allows much simpler fuzzy mapping on the whole set of supported names, instead of attempting to do the same on keys).. > so what you call “random string” is actually your mobile phone service > provider, i.e. it is part of the characteristic you need to know. Maybe this > could lead to 1000 different keys globally, in a country like Italy it is > more like 5. > > Cheers, Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
sent from a phone On 27. Dec 2018, at 11:44, Simon Poole wrote: >> much easier to evaluate than one like: >> some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar > > This is being directly disingenuous, because what is a actually being > proposed is > > characteristic_I_need_to_know:random_string=yes > > 1000+ more random strings. usually what you want to know is whether you can top up your mobile phone, not if any kind of top ups are provided, so what you call “random string” is actually your mobile phone service provider, i.e. it is part of the characteristic you need to know. Maybe this could lead to 1000 different keys globally, in a country like Italy it is more like 5. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On 26.12.2018 19:05, bkil wrote:> top_up:phone:‹brand›=yes;no > top_up:transport:‹brand›=yes;no > top_up:credit_card:‹brand›=yes;no > > This is not the same wording as discussed above, but I still like this one. I'd prefer if the supported brands were part of the value – as most brand-related strings currently are. Like this, for example: top_up:phone = Brand1;Brand2 Otherwise, we would end up with a very large, unbounded number of keys, which likely isn't as easy to support for editing tools. And (although this is the least important reason) brands are likely to use characters such as uppercase letters or non-ASCII characters that should be avoided in keys where possible. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
PS: btw this specific proposal is also "interesting" as it introduces mixed case keys, which in general have been considered nonos. Am 27.12.2018 um 11:44 schrieb Simon Poole: > There is a substantial difference between tagging a limited set of > physical properties (and yes clearly some of this could have been done > as a list too) that are known in advance vs. moving an essentially > unbounded list of fantasy names in to key space. > > The argument that semi-colons shouldn't be used is specious, what is > correct is that the semantics of a key with a list should be documents, > but once that has been done there is no reason not to do so. > > As to the argument with recording non-supported vendors 99.9% of this is > simply whataboutism, if you can really make a case that you need to > explicitly record that instead of relying on default semantics, you can > simply add a key for that. > > Am 26.12.2018 um 16:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 26. Dec 2018, at 15:08, Stefan Keller wrote: >>> >>> Tag-proposals in the form >>> :[:]=yes/no should be >>> avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! >> it’s not a value, it‘s a property ;-) >> it depends on your interpretation, e.g. motorroad=yes >> oneway=yes >> >> aren’t these values and we should tag them >> road_restrictions=motorroad;oneway? >> >> >> top_up:phone=yes >> means: provides phone top up. >> For practical reason, I would expect a scheme >> characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no >> >> much easier to evaluate than one like: >> some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar > This is being directly disingenuous, because what is a actually being > proposed is > > characteristic_I_need_to_know:random_string=yes > > 1000+ more random strings. > > >> >> 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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
There is a substantial difference between tagging a limited set of physical properties (and yes clearly some of this could have been done as a list too) that are known in advance vs. moving an essentially unbounded list of fantasy names in to key space. The argument that semi-colons shouldn't be used is specious, what is correct is that the semantics of a key with a list should be documents, but once that has been done there is no reason not to do so. As to the argument with recording non-supported vendors 99.9% of this is simply whataboutism, if you can really make a case that you need to explicitly record that instead of relying on default semantics, you can simply add a key for that. Am 26.12.2018 um 16:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 26. Dec 2018, at 15:08, Stefan Keller wrote: >> >> Tag-proposals in the form >> :[:]=yes/no should be >> avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! > > it’s not a value, it‘s a property ;-) > it depends on your interpretation, e.g. motorroad=yes > oneway=yes > > aren’t these values and we should tag them > road_restrictions=motorroad;oneway? > > > top_up:phone=yes > means: provides phone top up. > For practical reason, I would expect a scheme > characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no > > much easier to evaluate than one like: > some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar This is being directly disingenuous, because what is a actually being proposed is characteristic_I_need_to_know:random_string=yes 1000+ more random strings. > > > Cheers, Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
"top up" is commonly used in Thailand for adding money to a cell phone balance. My bank's website, Kasikorn Bank, uses that exact term and offers a way to "top up" your phone online. On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 7:54 AM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 26.12.2018 19:05, bkil wrote: > > Please don't confuse top ups with refilling: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refilling_a_purchased_drink > > No I don't confuse it. The refilling proposal is about refills without > additional charge. > To top-up a drink is purchasing a new one without wasting another clean > glass. > > > I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the > balance of prepaid mobile > > phone accounts. > > By which standard? I think it is marketing slang, as it makes no sense > semantically. > > > top_up:credit_card:‹brand›=yes;no > > As said, if the amount is pre-paid, it is not a credit card. It might be a > debit card because you > have to have the money in advance. > > tom > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On 26.12.2018 19:05, bkil wrote: Please don't confuse top ups with refilling: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refilling_a_purchased_drink No I don't confuse it. The refilling proposal is about refills without additional charge. To top-up a drink is purchasing a new one without wasting another clean glass. I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the balance of prepaid mobile phone accounts. By which standard? I think it is marketing slang, as it makes no sense semantically. top_up:credit_card:‹brand›=yes;no As said, if the amount is pre-paid, it is not a credit card. It might be a debit card because you have to have the money in advance. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 21:48, bkil wrote: > Yes, it would be more comfortable to tag the PayPoint service itself in a > certain way instead of all the individual services. > > It is also better maintainable, as when a new provider registers with > PayPoint, we don't need to amend all previously tagged places with a mass > import. > As I already mentioned, I couldn't find an authoritative, definitive list. They claim to route payments to over 300 companies and showed over 30 logos (most of which I could identify). I think from a user perspective, you already know if you can use PayPoint to complete whichever transaction you have in mind and so you just need to find a shop with a PayPoint terminal in whatever location you happen to be. In order to properly fill payment:*=*, I once started to gather the kind of > POS terminals and payment processors in Hungary and the type of cards > accepted at each place, but the list was not pretty. Basically each shop > accepts a random subset of 5-10 card issuers depending on the payment > processor/terminal provider. > Sounds about right unless your country has a large payment processor like PayPoint. They accept all major credit/debit/bank cards (I have a vague memory they don't accept American Express or Diner's Club). And, of course, you can pay by cash. Noting all accepted cards precisely for every shop is exhaustive, so it is > not being done around here (I myself simply use debit_cards=yes instead). > Again, in the UK, we have all our shit in one sock (mostly). If a shop has EPOS then it accepts all major credit/debit/bank cards (American Express and Diner's Club are exceptions). Payment processors in the UK generally accept all major cards. And so do ATMs. Our banks talk to each other. EPOS is how the shop accepts payments for its own goods/services, PayPoint is how it allows customers to pay others. It would also carry a high maintenance burden later on. However, if we > simply mapped the payment processor/terminal provider instead of the > individual card combinations accepted, it could be done much more > effectively, but then we needed an external lookup table very similar to > what you propose, that may be edited on a machine readable wiki page for > example. > Depends on the country, I suppose. In the UK you know if you have a card that is usable in any card reader or if it's only useful in a very limited number of outlets. > Although I'm not from the UK, I think this is where the term "top up" > originated from and what the of the world identifies it as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_up > That looks about right, although I expect the term originally derives by analogy with topping up your petrol tank. It's pretty much the same situation with PAYG phones. Well, was, because what some major operators here are now pushing as PAYG isn't. But it used to be. You put some "minutes" in your phone's "tank" and could continue to use it until it went dry. At any point you could top it up, even if it wasn't close to empty. I think (my memory isn't that good and I wasn't paying much attention at the time) that PayPoint started out as a way of topping up mobiles but has now expanded into many other sorts of payments. But it's still where you go for top-ups. In much the same way, we still talk about dialling somebody's phone number even though very few of us have a phone with a rotary dial. So if you see a potential for confusion with the future use of the term > "top up", please help us come up with a better one that can still be > understood and translated internationally. > PayPoint, at least, covers all types of payment. Prepayment for phones, electricity keys, TV licence. Regular payments. Bill payments. Payment by arrangement if you can't pay your full gas bill in one go. Etc. In other countries it may well be different, although in the future they may find similar payment systems appear (because there's a demand for them). I can't think of a good term to cover it, except how PayPoint describe what they offer: payment services. I'm not particularly happy with that, but it describes what they do better than "top ups." -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Yes, it would be more comfortable to tag the PayPoint service itself in a certain way instead of all the individual services. It is also better maintainable, as when a new provider registers with PayPoint, we don't need to amend all previously tagged places with a mass import. >From a perspective of policy, I guess we may allow such shorthand for specific exceptional cases when end users can easily identify the brand and what it implicates. Keep in mind that machine processing will suffer unless we store such mapping on the wiki. In order to properly fill payment:*=*, I once started to gather the kind of POS terminals and payment processors in Hungary and the type of cards accepted at each place, but the list was not pretty. Basically each shop accepts a random subset of 5-10 card issuers depending on the payment processor/terminal provider. Noting all accepted cards precisely for every shop is exhaustive, so it is not being done around here (I myself simply use debit_cards=yes instead). It would also carry a high maintenance burden later on. However, if we simply mapped the payment processor/terminal provider instead of the individual card combinations accepted, it could be done much more effectively, but then we needed an external lookup table very similar to what you propose, that may be edited on a machine readable wiki page for example. I find that this very same issue pops up pretty often when we are trying to extend and redesign OSM related data models and processes, so it would be nice to arrive at a universal solution for this. Here are some examples at the end of this thread if you are interested: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/openstreetmap-hungary/0ufRoNmw25U Although I'm not from the UK, I think this is where the term "top up" originated from and what the of the world identifies it as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_up However, I can see where you are coming from: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/top-up#Noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/top_up#Verb In Hungary, it doesn't make sense to say "topping up" (roughly translated as "filling up your balance") your bills - we always use the word "pay" or "settle" (the latter roughly translated as equilibrate) in context of debts and invoices. Although the words for refilling coffee (the waiter roughly asks whether they can pour/fill some more coffee for you) and topping up balance (you roughly say that you are "charging" some balance or money on the card similar to charging or filling up a battery completely) are pretty close indeed. So if you see a potential for confusion with the future use of the term "top up", please help us come up with a better one that can still be understood and translated internationally. On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:18 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 18:07, bkil wrote: > >> Please don't confuse top ups with refilling: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refilling_a_purchased_drink >> >> I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the >> balance of prepaid mobile phone accounts. >> > > That, amongst other things. Even when, strictly speaking, they're > payments rather than top-ups. > Because language mutates that way, and what started out as being purely > for topping things up > ended up also handling bill payments. > > Since you mentioned the UK, then just to complicate matters... > > A large number of outlets offer the services of PayPoint. With this > system I can top up my phone > account with the UK's four main mobile network operators (and possibly > some of the virtual operators), > pay some or part of my gas bill, top up my electricity meter key, pay some > or part of my water bill, pay > some or part of my TV licence (those outside the UK may have no idea what > that is or why we have one) > and pay many other different things. > > I'd like to be able to point you at a list of everything that can be > paid/topped up using PayPoint. I really > would. Because, if I saw the list I might spot some other thing it would > be preferable[1] for me to pay > that way. But PayPoint's website appears not to have such a list. I > might be able to find such a list > from the sitemap, but that is broken. So all I can do is give you this > link and you can play > "guess the logo" for the 30+ logos of the claimed 300+ companies that can > be paid this way: > https://corporate.paypoint.com/our-proposition/whatwedo > > There's a hell of a lot of things that can be paid/topped up that way. I > suspect it might be better (at least > in the UK) to tag it topup:payment_network=paypoint or some such rather > than have 300+ > topup:phone:ee=yes + topup:electricy:sse=yes + topup:water:dwr_cymru=yes + > topup:gas:eon=yes + topup:tv_licence=yes +... > > [1]Why would I ever find it preferable to pay anything (other than top up > my electricity meter key) this > way? My bank has a scheme to encourage people to use online banking, > whereby certain businesses
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
I don't use these systems but would agree with Paul on this, there will be hundreds of things that can be paid at these terminals. Beyond what has so far been mentioned you can pay road tolls or buy tickets for my local bus and probably many other local bus companies. Although I can imagine some confusion if I was in London asking for a bus ticket between Wem and Shrewsbury even though the machine will be exactly the same as the one in my local shop. Phil (trigpoint) On 26 December 2018 20:16:46 GMT, Paul Allen wrote: >On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 18:07, bkil wrote: > >> Please don't confuse top ups with refilling: >> >> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refilling_a_purchased_drink >> >> I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the >> balance of prepaid mobile phone accounts. >> > >That, amongst other things. Even when, strictly speaking, they're >payments >rather than top-ups. >Because language mutates that way, and what started out as being purely >for >topping things up >ended up also handling bill payments. > >Since you mentioned the UK, then just to complicate matters... > >A large number of outlets offer the services of PayPoint. With this >system >I can top up my phone >account with the UK's four main mobile network operators (and possibly >some >of the virtual operators), >pay some or part of my gas bill, top up my electricity meter key, pay >some >or part of my water bill, pay >some or part of my TV licence (those outside the UK may have no idea >what >that is or why we have one) >and pay many other different things. > >I'd like to be able to point you at a list of everything that can be >paid/topped up using PayPoint. I really >would. Because, if I saw the list I might spot some other thing it >would >be preferable[1] for me to pay >that way. But PayPoint's website appears not to have such a list. I >might >be able to find such a list >from the sitemap, but that is broken. So all I can do is give you this >link and you can play >"guess the logo" for the 30+ logos of the claimed 300+ companies that >can >be paid this way: >https://corporate.paypoint.com/our-proposition/whatwedo > >There's a hell of a lot of things that can be paid/topped up that way. >I >suspect it might be better (at least >in the UK) to tag it topup:payment_network=paypoint or some such rather >than have 300+ >topup:phone:ee=yes + topup:electricy:sse=yes + >topup:water:dwr_cymru=yes + >topup:gas:eon=yes + topup:tv_licence=yes +... > >[1]Why would I ever find it preferable to pay anything (other than top >up >my electricity meter key) this >way? My bank has a scheme to encourage people to use online banking, >whereby certain businesses >offer discounts (if you use online banking to select a particular >discount >currently on offer). One of the >shops near me with a PayPoint terminal is part of a franchise that >offers >me a 5% discount every 3 or >4 months. It's supposed to entice me to buy their big-brand-only, >sold-at >higher-than-anybody-else's >prices merchandise. I use it purely for PayPoint purchases where the >price >is exactly the same as I'd >pay anywhere else. I even get 5% off cashback under that discount >scheme! > >-- >Paul -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 18:07, bkil wrote: > Please don't confuse top ups with refilling: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refilling_a_purchased_drink > > I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the > balance of prepaid mobile phone accounts. > That, amongst other things. Even when, strictly speaking, they're payments rather than top-ups. Because language mutates that way, and what started out as being purely for topping things up ended up also handling bill payments. Since you mentioned the UK, then just to complicate matters... A large number of outlets offer the services of PayPoint. With this system I can top up my phone account with the UK's four main mobile network operators (and possibly some of the virtual operators), pay some or part of my gas bill, top up my electricity meter key, pay some or part of my water bill, pay some or part of my TV licence (those outside the UK may have no idea what that is or why we have one) and pay many other different things. I'd like to be able to point you at a list of everything that can be paid/topped up using PayPoint. I really would. Because, if I saw the list I might spot some other thing it would be preferable[1] for me to pay that way. But PayPoint's website appears not to have such a list. I might be able to find such a list from the sitemap, but that is broken. So all I can do is give you this link and you can play "guess the logo" for the 30+ logos of the claimed 300+ companies that can be paid this way: https://corporate.paypoint.com/our-proposition/whatwedo There's a hell of a lot of things that can be paid/topped up that way. I suspect it might be better (at least in the UK) to tag it topup:payment_network=paypoint or some such rather than have 300+ topup:phone:ee=yes + topup:electricy:sse=yes + topup:water:dwr_cymru=yes + topup:gas:eon=yes + topup:tv_licence=yes +... [1]Why would I ever find it preferable to pay anything (other than top up my electricity meter key) this way? My bank has a scheme to encourage people to use online banking, whereby certain businesses offer discounts (if you use online banking to select a particular discount currently on offer). One of the shops near me with a PayPoint terminal is part of a franchise that offers me a 5% discount every 3 or 4 months. It's supposed to entice me to buy their big-brand-only, sold-at higher-than-anybody-else's prices merchandise. I use it purely for PayPoint purchases where the price is exactly the same as I'd pay anywhere else. I even get 5% off cashback under that discount scheme! -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Stefan, I think most of us here do not fully understand your hard arguments, but if you could please elaborate a bit more or give some more examples, maybe we could better address your concerns. Anyway, this question sounds a bit orthogonal to the proposal at hand. Could anyone please link to a previous discussion with arguments in this topic? I'm absolutely sure that it comes up annually around here, but I'm newbie here, so I can't tell from the top of my head. On our local list, this argument usually comes up in the other way around: I usually want to endorse a way to use as much semicolons as possible to ease the work of mappers, while everyone else lists counter arguments that boolean alternatives are the upcoming norm. The socket key grew up from power_supply, check how they use that in taginfo. Consider the following example: socket:cee_17_blue=2 socket:cee_7_3=yes It indicates that we have 2 sockets of the first, and they also have some of the second kind, but we don't know how many. Perhaps it came from an import, from memory, or there was simply not enough time to count them all. How else would you tag this? Getting back to the proposal at hand, how would you map this place? top_up:phone:Vodafone=yes top_up:phone:Telekom=yes top_up:phone:Telenor=yes top_up:phone:Blue_mobile=no top_up:transport=yes Which one would cut it instead in your opinion? top_up:phone=Vodafone;Telekom;Telenor top_up:transport=yes Or this one: top_up=phone:Vodafone;phone:Telekom;phone:Telenor;transport Or try to translate this example: top_up:phone=yes top_up:transport=yes Would it correspond to this? top_up=phone:transport Given proper presets & UI, a mapper simply ticks some boxes and be done with it - no typing needed. And anyway, I use the contact:* schema extensively and I do not feel that to slow me down - it's just a matter of learning to touch type or using proper autocompletion. >From a performance perspective, if one has a Telenor card and wants to top up, geolocating a place is as simple as looking up top_up:phone:Telenor=yes in the granular case using a DB index/map (key-value based bigdata storage also shines here). If we crammed everything into the same top_up or top_up:phone field, we would need regexp lookups that are much less efficient. Although, if this was the only drawback, we would have the option to build an intermediate shadow database from the master OSM just for the purpose of efficient lookups (basically normalizing to the same form as seen above). Actually the best solution would be to combine the advantages of both. It would not be really difficult to come up with an editor in which you could enter top_up:phone=Telenor,Vodafone,Telekom and it would automatically expand to the above form on pressing enter (including the missing entries defaulting to *=no!). Namespacing has the added benefit of sorting the keys alphabetically putting them nearby (the same advantage for contact:*=*), although an interface could choose to compress these as they wish. Full disclosure: up to now, I was happy to use semicolons in cuisine=*, as I don't expect people to do lookups for these and there's sometimes a dozen of them, but this does cause sleepless night. Fortunately, editors support checkboxes for this field in this scheme. On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 6:03 PM Stefan Keller wrote: > Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 16:47 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer > : > > For practical reason, I would expect a scheme > > characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no > > > > much easier to evaluate than one like: > > some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar > > No it's not easier. The following > some_services_foo=yes/no > some_services_characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no > some_services_bar=yes/no > > is three times more to read and write for humans, as compared to > some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar > > and - again: > > The form "detail:value:sub_value(:...)=?" > (1.) breaks fundamental(!) assumptions in OSM (assuming tags as a key > and value(s)). > And (2) it breaks programming principles (requiring a attribute-name > having value(s)). > > So it's obvious why the Wiki and taginfo and you name it can't cope > with it. I'm sorry, but it's hard to be more clear and explicit than > that. > > And I hope for OSM that it's not becoming common - even given there > are other bad examples like recycling or service:bicycle [1]. > > :Stefan > > P.S. Note that it's the fact that there are alternatives especially to > the boolean yes/no/unkown case and that tagging schemes like "socket" > [2] is acceptable since it's still about a value in the key=value > pair. > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Abicycle > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:socket > > Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 16:47 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer > : > > > > > > > > sent from a phone > > > > > On 26. Dec 2018, at 15:08, Stefan Keller wrote: > > > > > > Tag-proposals in the form > > > :[:]=yes/no should be > >
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Please don't confuse top ups with refilling: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refilling_a_purchased_drink I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the balance of prepaid mobile phone accounts. The author has since updated the wiki page for the proposal, so now it reads: top_up:phone=yes;no -> This shop sells telephone recharge vouchers or over-the-air credit top-up top_up:transport=yes;no -> This shop sells public transport card top-up top_up:credit_card=yes;no -> This shop sells credit card top up top_up:phone:‹brand›=yes;no top_up:transport:‹brand›=yes;no top_up:credit_card:‹brand›=yes;no This is not the same wording as discussed above, but I still like this one. On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 2:11 PM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I find "top_up" alone highly misleading and unspecific. > > I encountered the term in filling stations, where you would order either > "5 gallons" or "top up", > i.e. to fully fill the tank. Or when pre-paying the fuel, you would either > pay "fuel for $20", or > leave your credit card with the cashier to allow "top up". > > In the same sense, you could ask the bar keeper to "top up" your cocktail > glass. > > In the context of pre-paying credits for phone or transport, there is no > such "top", no upper limit, > you could buy any amount you want. Thus this marketing slang is misleading. > > It is unspecific to be used in OSM since it does not indicate which > service is being paid for. > Using it on the object tagged with amenity=bar it gets absolutely > confusing what is getting topped up. > > Thus, I'd not use the term "top_up" at all, and as Martin proposed, > indicate the type of service > first, e.g.: > phone_credits=yes > transport_credits=yes > cocktail_glasses_topped_up=yes > > Even 'credits' seem problematic, since what you pre-pay is not a credit. > tom > > > On 25.12.2018 21:03, Daniele Santini wrote:> Hi, I propose to introduce > the top_up=* key to specify > whether a shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile > > phone credit recharge vouchers, over-the-air credit top up and/or > public transport credit recharge > > vouchers). > > On 26.12.2018 12:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > +1, I was proposing on talk-it a very similar > > phone_top_up=yes/no > > phone_top_up:=yes/ no > > > > but given that top_up=yes already has some uses (mainly for public > transport it seems), a more general scheme top_up:phone: could be > more obvious to data users and more consistent with the current data, so +1 > to this. > > ___ > 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 - Top up
Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 16:47 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > For practical reason, I would expect a scheme > characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no > > much easier to evaluate than one like: > some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar No it's not easier. The following some_services_foo=yes/no some_services_characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no some_services_bar=yes/no is three times more to read and write for humans, as compared to some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar and - again: The form "detail:value:sub_value(:...)=?" (1.) breaks fundamental(!) assumptions in OSM (assuming tags as a key and value(s)). And (2) it breaks programming principles (requiring a attribute-name having value(s)). So it's obvious why the Wiki and taginfo and you name it can't cope with it. I'm sorry, but it's hard to be more clear and explicit than that. And I hope for OSM that it's not becoming common - even given there are other bad examples like recycling or service:bicycle [1]. :Stefan P.S. Note that it's the fact that there are alternatives especially to the boolean yes/no/unkown case and that tagging schemes like "socket" [2] is acceptable since it's still about a value in the key=value pair. [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Abicycle [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:socket Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 16:47 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > > sent from a phone > > > On 26. Dec 2018, at 15:08, Stefan Keller wrote: > > > > Tag-proposals in the form > > :[:]=yes/no should be > > avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! > > > it’s not a value, it‘s a property ;-) > it depends on your interpretation, e.g. motorroad=yes > oneway=yes > > aren’t these values and we should tag them > road_restrictions=motorroad;oneway? > > > top_up:phone=yes > means: provides phone top up. > For practical reason, I would expect a scheme > characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no > > much easier to evaluate than one like: > some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar > > > 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 - Top up
sent from a phone > On 26. Dec 2018, at 15:08, Stefan Keller wrote: > > Tag-proposals in the form > :[:]=yes/no should be > avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! it’s not a value, it‘s a property ;-) it depends on your interpretation, e.g. motorroad=yes oneway=yes aren’t these values and we should tag them road_restrictions=motorroad;oneway? top_up:phone=yes means: provides phone top up. For practical reason, I would expect a scheme characteristic_I_need_to_know=yes/no much easier to evaluate than one like: some_services=foo;characteristic_I_need_to_know;bar Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 15:10, Stefan Keller wrote: > > Tag-proposals in the form > :[:]=yes/no should be > avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! > > This detracts processing - given we/OSM already have a non-relational > key-value schema. Specifically it makes processing with presets and > any key-value analysis very hard. > > And by saying hard I don't mean it's because some programmers may be > lazy. It's because having a value as part of an attribute-name is > really a wrong data structure. > > [...] > > There are so many tagging alternatives - like the usual tag scheme. Sorry for asking, but what do you understand by 'usual tag scheme'? The proposed scheme seems to be quite common, e.g. see recycling:=yes/no. Besides i thought that semicolons should be avoided, because, among other things, you can't specify that a feature or service isn't available (e.g. that you can't top up public transport cards at a specific place). How would your top_up tagging scheme look like? top_up= + top_up:=? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
(I am resending this mail because the first time I forgot to change the object from "Digest". Sorry for the double mail!) So what's your suggestion? top_up:=? _top_up:=yes/no? _top_up:brand=? Il giorno mer 26 dic 2018 alle ore 15:09 ha scritto: > Hi, > > Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Markus < > selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > > I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags > > top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience > > Tag-proposals in the form > :[:]=yes/no should be > avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! > > This detracts processing - given we/OSM already have a non-relational > key-value schema. Specifically it makes processing with presets and > any key-value analysis very hard. > > And by saying hard I don't mean it's because some programmers may be > lazy. It's because having a value as part of an attribute-name is > really a wrong data structure. > > In fact, ":[:] = boolean" > has to be officially considered harmful! > > There are so many tagging alternatives - like the usual tag scheme. > > :Stefan > > [1] > https://2018.stateofthemap.org/2018/T061-An_excursion_in_to_the_world_of_OSM_tagging_presets/ > > > Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Markus < > selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > > > > I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags > > top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience > > stores, kiosks etc. too. > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 09:59, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > There are some vending machines that offer 'top up' ... how are these > to be tagged? Together with a payment tag too. > > > > > > There are some convenience stores that offer 'top up' services .. how > are these to be tagged? > > > > > > > > > On 26/12/18 19:31, Markus wrote: > > > > Hi Daniele, > > > > > > > > From the proposal page: > > > > > > > >> It's possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with > the key brand=*. > > > >> > > > >> A bar that sells Vodafone phone vouchers: amenity=bar + top_up=yes > + brand=vodafone > > > > The brand=* key specifies the brand of the main tag, here > amenity=bar. > > > > In your example, this would mean that it's a Vodafone bar. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, top_up=yes doesn't say whether you can top up mobile > > > > phones, public transport cards or something else, for example prepaid > > > > credit cards. > > > > > > > > Therefore i would suggest someting like: > > > > > > > > top_up:mobile_phone=yes/no > > > > top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no > > > > top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no > > > > > > > > top_up:public_transport=yes/no > > > > top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no > > > > top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no > > > > > > > > top_up:credit_card=yes/no > > > > top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Markus > > > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini > wrote: > > > >> Link of the proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up > > > >> Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a > shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, > over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge > vouchers). > > > >> Kind regards > > > >> -- > > > >> Daniele Santini > > > >> http://www.dsantini.it > -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Hi, Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Markus : > I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags > top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience Tag-proposals in the form :[:]=yes/no should be avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names! This detracts processing - given we/OSM already have a non-relational key-value schema. Specifically it makes processing with presets and any key-value analysis very hard. And by saying hard I don't mean it's because some programmers may be lazy. It's because having a value as part of an attribute-name is really a wrong data structure. In fact, ":[:] = boolean" has to be officially considered harmful! There are so many tagging alternatives - like the usual tag scheme. :Stefan [1] https://2018.stateofthemap.org/2018/T061-An_excursion_in_to_the_world_of_OSM_tagging_presets/ Am Mi., 26. Dez. 2018 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Markus : > > I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags > top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience > stores, kiosks etc. too. > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 09:59, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There are some vending machines that offer 'top up' ... how are these to be > > tagged? Together with a payment tag too. > > > > There are some convenience stores that offer 'top up' services .. how are > > these to be tagged? > > > > > > On 26/12/18 19:31, Markus wrote: > > > Hi Daniele, > > > > > > From the proposal page: > > > > > >> It's possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with the > > >> key brand=*. > > >> > > >> A bar that sells Vodafone phone vouchers: amenity=bar + top_up=yes + > > >> brand=vodafone > > > The brand=* key specifies the brand of the main tag, here amenity=bar. > > > In your example, this would mean that it's a Vodafone bar. > > > > > > Furthermore, top_up=yes doesn't say whether you can top up mobile > > > phones, public transport cards or something else, for example prepaid > > > credit cards. > > > > > > Therefore i would suggest someting like: > > > > > > top_up:mobile_phone=yes/no > > > top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no > > > top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no > > > > > > top_up:public_transport=yes/no > > > top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no > > > top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no > > > > > > top_up:credit_card=yes/no > > > top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no > > > > > > Regards > > > Markus > > > > > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini wrote: > > >> Link of the proposal: > > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up > > >> Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a > > >> shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, > > >> over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge > > >> vouchers). > > >> Kind regards > > >> -- > > >> Daniele Santini > > >> http://www.dsantini.it > > >> ___ > > >> Tagging mailing list > > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___ > > > Tagging mailing list > > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > 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 - Top up
I find "top_up" alone highly misleading and unspecific. I encountered the term in filling stations, where you would order either "5 gallons" or "top up", i.e. to fully fill the tank. Or when pre-paying the fuel, you would either pay "fuel for $20", or leave your credit card with the cashier to allow "top up". In the same sense, you could ask the bar keeper to "top up" your cocktail glass. In the context of pre-paying credits for phone or transport, there is no such "top", no upper limit, you could buy any amount you want. Thus this marketing slang is misleading. It is unspecific to be used in OSM since it does not indicate which service is being paid for. Using it on the object tagged with amenity=bar it gets absolutely confusing what is getting topped up. Thus, I'd not use the term "top_up" at all, and as Martin proposed, indicate the type of service first, e.g.: phone_credits=yes transport_credits=yes cocktail_glasses_topped_up=yes Even 'credits' seem problematic, since what you pre-pay is not a credit. tom On 25.12.2018 21:03, Daniele Santini wrote:> Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile > phone credit recharge vouchers, over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge > vouchers). On 26.12.2018 12:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, I was proposing on talk-it a very similar phone_top_up=yes/no phone_top_up:=yes/ no but given that top_up=yes already has some uses (mainly for public transport it seems), a more general scheme top_up:phone: could be more obvious to data users and more consistent with the current data, so +1 to this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
This seems right. I updated the proposal page, check it out: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up Il giorno mer 26 dic 2018 alle ore 12:42 ha scritto: > Hi Daniele, > > >From the proposal page: > > > It's possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with the > key brand=*. > > > > A bar that sells Vodafone phone vouchers: amenity=bar + top_up=yes + > brand=vodafone > > The brand=* key specifies the brand of the main tag, here amenity=bar. > In your example, this would mean that it's a Vodafone bar. > > Furthermore, top_up=yes doesn't say whether you can top up mobile > phones, public transport cards or something else, for example prepaid > credit cards. > > Therefore i would suggest someting like: > > top_up:mobile_phone=yes/no > top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no > top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no > > top_up:public_transport=yes/no > top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no > top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no > > top_up:credit_card=yes/no > top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no > > Regards > Markus > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini wrote: > > > > Link of the proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up > > Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a > shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, > over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge > vouchers). > > Kind regards > > -- > > Daniele Santini > > http://www.dsantini.it > > -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
I support the scheme outline by Markus, please update your proposal. I've already proposed the exactly same scheme on our local mailing list some time ago, so it is very intuitive: top_up:[:]=yes/no On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 12:35 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 26. Dec 2018, at 10:11, Markus wrote: > > > > I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags > > top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience > > stores, kiosks etc. too. > > > +1, I was proposing on talk-it a very similar > phone_top_up=yes/no > phone_top_up:=yes/ no > > but given that top_up=yes already has some uses (mainly for public > transport it seems), a more general scheme top_up:phone: could be > more obvious to data users and more consistent with the current data, so +1 > to this. > > > 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 - Top up
sent from a phone > On 26. Dec 2018, at 10:11, Markus wrote: > > I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags > top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience > stores, kiosks etc. too. +1, I was proposing on talk-it a very similar phone_top_up=yes/no phone_top_up:=yes/ no but given that top_up=yes already has some uses (mainly for public transport it seems), a more general scheme top_up:phone: could be more obvious to data users and more consistent with the current data, so +1 to this. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
I don't see a problem that would prevent using the proposed tags top_up:[:]=yes/no for vending machines, ATMs, convenience stores, kiosks etc. too. On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 09:59, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are some vending machines that offer 'top up' ... how are these to be > tagged? Together with a payment tag too. > > There are some convenience stores that offer 'top up' services .. how are > these to be tagged? > > > On 26/12/18 19:31, Markus wrote: > > Hi Daniele, > > > > From the proposal page: > > > >> It's possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with the > >> key brand=*. > >> > >> A bar that sells Vodafone phone vouchers: amenity=bar + top_up=yes + > >> brand=vodafone > > The brand=* key specifies the brand of the main tag, here amenity=bar. > > In your example, this would mean that it's a Vodafone bar. > > > > Furthermore, top_up=yes doesn't say whether you can top up mobile > > phones, public transport cards or something else, for example prepaid > > credit cards. > > > > Therefore i would suggest someting like: > > > > top_up:mobile_phone=yes/no > > top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no > > top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no > > > > top_up:public_transport=yes/no > > top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no > > top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no > > > > top_up:credit_card=yes/no > > top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no > > > > Regards > > Markus > > > > On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini wrote: > >> Link of the proposal: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up > >> Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a > >> shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, > >> over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge > >> vouchers). > >> Kind regards > >> -- > >> Daniele Santini > >> http://www.dsantini.it > >> ___ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > 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 - Top up
There are some vending machines that offer 'top up' ... how are these to be tagged? Together with a payment tag too. There are some convenience stores that offer 'top up' services .. how are these to be tagged? On 26/12/18 19:31, Markus wrote: Hi Daniele, From the proposal page: It's possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with the key brand=*. A bar that sells Vodafone phone vouchers: amenity=bar + top_up=yes + brand=vodafone The brand=* key specifies the brand of the main tag, here amenity=bar. In your example, this would mean that it's a Vodafone bar. Furthermore, top_up=yes doesn't say whether you can top up mobile phones, public transport cards or something else, for example prepaid credit cards. Therefore i would suggest someting like: top_up:mobile_phone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no top_up:public_transport=yes/no top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no top_up:credit_card=yes/no top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no Regards Markus On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini wrote: Link of the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge vouchers). Kind regards -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ 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 - Top up
Hi Daniele, From the proposal page: > It's possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with the key > brand=*. > > A bar that sells Vodafone phone vouchers: amenity=bar + top_up=yes + > brand=vodafone The brand=* key specifies the brand of the main tag, here amenity=bar. In your example, this would mean that it's a Vodafone bar. Furthermore, top_up=yes doesn't say whether you can top up mobile phones, public transport cards or something else, for example prepaid credit cards. Therefore i would suggest someting like: top_up:mobile_phone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no top_up:public_transport=yes/no top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no top_up:credit_card=yes/no top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no Regards Markus On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini wrote: > > Link of the proposal: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up > Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a shop/amenity > sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, over-the-air credit > top up and/or public transport credit recharge vouchers). > Kind regards > -- > Daniele Santini > http://www.dsantini.it > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
Link of the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify whether a shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile phone credit recharge vouchers, over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge vouchers). Kind regards -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
