Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 10:41, Luke Marlin  wrote:

>
> Now, I've read that iteration (all messages), and even though Paul
> Allen looked slighty sarcastic/irritated at the end,
>

Sorry about that.  Others are far more diplomatic and patient than I am.
I don't always respond in the optimum way.  I try, but often fail.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 08:25, Valor Naram via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> My proposal:
> - Moving all social media keys like `facebook`, `twitter`, `whatsapp`,
> `telegram` etc. to a `socialmedia` namespace like `socialmedia:facebook`,
> `socialmedia:twitter`, `socialmedia:whatsapp`, `socialmedia:telegram` etc.
>

Why do you think this is useful?  The sole justification for namespaces I
can
see is preventing key collisions.  There are two reasons when preventing
key collisions is desirable:

1) A sub-key would have two entirely different meanings depending upon
which main key it is used with.  This would be confusing.

2) A sub-key has the same meaning when used with two or more main keys
but takes a different sub-set of values depending which main key it is
used with.  For editors which populate drop-downs from the wiki
or wikidata, this means users are presented with some choices
which do not make sense or are invalid with the main key they
have used.  It may also mean they are presented with an
awkwardly long list of choices in the drop-down, many of
which are not applicable with that main key.

Perhaps there are other valid reasons for namespaces.  A simple desire
to group things for neatness is not one of them.

Can you present a likely scenario in which we would use a different prefix
with facebook, whatsapp, etc. other than socialmedia?  One that could not
be solved by using a namespace for the new scenario?  Bear in mind
that these social media companies defend their trademarks vigorously
and that even in jurisdictions where the same word may be used as
a trademark in different categories, Facebook are likely to throw more
money at a law suit than Facebook Paint, Facebook Frozen Foods
and the like are able to match and in such law suits the deepest
pocket usually wins.

This seems to be grouping for the sake of grouping where no grouping
is necessary.  You tried it with phone and website and that was not
greeted enthusiastically so your response is to come up with more
needless groiuping.

Now the difficult part begins because no "mechanical edit" is possible (or
> at least very difficult and error-prone) here:
> - `contact:website`: Only websites to be used for contacting purpose only
> (and having little or no information character).
>

Can you give me an example of such a website?  Can you then show where it
has been mapped?  Can you then show where the POI's main website does
not provide a link to the contact website and that therefore both are
necessary?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Luke Marlin]

I read the previous iteration of that discussion, and it left me with a
sour taste. The community was _not_ welcoming and made me reconsider my
view of OSM. People opposing the idea were often harsh, and arguments
were buried under piles of unpleasant-ness.

Now, I've read that iteration (all messages), and even though Paul
Allen looked slighty sarcastic/irritated at the end, he did a better
job at convincing me why this might not be a good idea because he
carefuly replied to points, and made some sensible ones as well.

So yeah, basically, what I wanted to say is thank you Paul for all you
wrote, your messages helped me understand another point of view and
showed me that this list could indeed be used to have actual
discussions between users.

On the topic itself, I still like the idea of having hierarchized tags,
but as it's been shown it might not easily apply here and probably
isn't worth the effort of applying a new scheme.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Valor Naram via Tagging]

Hi,

I was busy and couldn't participate in this very interesting
discussion.

My proposal:
- Moving all social media keys like `facebook`, `twitter`, `whatsapp`,
`telegram` etc. to a `socialmedia` namespace like
`socialmedia:facebook`, `socialmedia:twitter`, `socialmedia:whatsapp`,
`socialmedia:telegram` etc.
-  Enriching the definition of `phone` and therefore `contact:phone`
(because they mean the same): "If the `phone` key is mapped on an
object with `amenity=telephone` then `phone` is the phone number of the
telephone box and not the phone number of the operator."
- `phone` --> `contact:phone`
- `email` --> `contact:email`

Now the difficult part begins because no "mechanical edit" is possible
(or at least very difficult and error-prone) here:
- `contact:website`: Only websites to be used for contacting purpose
only (and having little or no information character).
- `website`: All the other websites of a POI not fitting in the
definition of `contact:website`. So providing valuable information
about the POI.

Cheers

Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram


-Original Message-
From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
To: Cj Malone 
Cc: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:'
scheme
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 00:01:33 +0200


sent from a phone
> On 10. May 2020, at 23:55, Cj Malone  wrote:
> I think we should actively encourage more precise tags
> likecontact:phone when it's a contact number.

why is this “more precise”? What about even “more precise” tags,
likecontact:phone:business_hours=contact:phone:reservations=even
better?
IMHO dataconsumers find the tags easiest if they use the same key, if
they have to search for the keys it will make everyone’s life harder
not better.
Cheers Martin ___Tagging
mailing listtagg...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-05-12 12:58, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:43, Sören alias Valor Naram  
> wrote: 
> 
>> Hey,
>> 
>> I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's why 
>> I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But mappers 
>> are not listening to data customers
> 
> Why do you think that other mappers are not data consumers? 
> 
>> and think they know how a database works (only few of them know that and 
>> those come from a technical field).
> 
> Why do you think they do not know these things?  And why do you think it 
> relevant?  Do you perhaps think that namespacing involves the creation 
> of a table for the namespace and that Codd's relational model applies to 
> namespaces?

Can someone come up with a metamodel description of the use of
namespacing? It would be interesting to apply it to the current set of
tags including a ":" character.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:43, Sören alias Valor Naram 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's
> why I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But
> mappers are not listening to data customers


Why do you think that other mappers are not data consumers?


> and think they know how a database works (only few of them know that and
> those come from a technical field).
>

Why do you think they do not know these things?  And why do you think it
relevant?  Do you perhaps think that namespacing involves the creation
of a table for the namespace and that Codd's relational model applies to
namespaces?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Sören alias Valor Naram]

Hey,I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's why I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But mappers are not listening to data customers and think they know how a database works (only few of them know that and those come from a technical field).~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' schemeFrom: Richard Fairhurst To: Tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the secondtime, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of dataconsumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers.https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_BRichard--Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Philip Barnes]

On 11/05/2020 10:29, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 5/10/20 7:36 PM, Cj Malone wrote:

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

Why should we split these out?

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


This is OSM, people can map anything that is verifiable.

I do map phone numbers of phoneboxes and can see various uses for this 
data.


The number of the phonebox in the village where my grandmother lived is 
still ingrained on my memory, we used to phone her at the phonebox at 
the same time every Sunday, being able to find out the number to call 
someone without visiting first is useful.


Taxi firms could find this useful to locate a customer who is unsure of 
their location.


I used to let my parents know I was ready to be picked up by letting the 
phone at home ring twice, I had to be at a specific place for that to 
work. But being able to look up the location of the phonebox would have 
meant I could be at any phonebox.


I am sure others will see other applications.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Richard Fairhurst]

I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the second
time, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of data
consumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers.

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 19:30, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

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

Your local drug-dealers so people can ring them at the phone box? :-)

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 20:18, s8evq  wrote:

> Do we have a lot of keys with double meaning, where you need to look at
> the which keys are also on the object to figure out the true meaning?
>

=taxi & =motorcycle_taxi? :-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 11.05.2020 03:10, Paul Allen wrote:
> I'm far from convinced that contact:website is useful.  It's certainly
> semantically wrong.  It's a contact;webpage not a contact:website
> (there are maybe a handful of exceptions to that).  Why do you think
> the user is more likely to require the webpage giving contact details
> rather than the home page of the web site?  I'd expect users are
> more likely to want more information on what a POI is than to
> want to find out how to contact it.
> 
> I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived.  But fine, if
> you want it then use it.  Just please stop suggesting that we
> deprecate website=* and phone=*.

Indeed the main reason why my preference is not to use the contact:* scheme
is that its proponents did not limit the scheme to true means of contacting,
but tried to press everything into it that was not up in the trees when counting
to three.

The most prominent example is website, where only a page with a message form 
would
be clearly in this category. However what is more recommended to be mapped is 
the
basic homepage of a POI, because it is least likely to be changed in website 
relaunches.

The main purpose for me to read a website is to gain information about the 
object
and not to contact it.

In countries where an imprint is not mandatory, websites often do not even 
provide contact
details at all.

There are many more examples on the contact:* wiki page that are pure methods 
of dissemination
and not of contact, such as contact:youtube or even contact:flickr

How is contact:webcam supposed to fit into the scheme?

In contrast, postal addresses are a very typical means of contact, I can send a 
letter
there. So consequently, we would have to to move the "addr:*" scheme into 
"contact:addr:*",
which would make the scheme even more stilted.

I guess that contact:[phone|fax|email], and nothing more, could have won easily 
if the
scheme had not tried to include all the other stuff.

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 11, 2020, 15:04 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> I would also advocate to focus on parts of tagging that
> are without known long-standing gridlock. 
>
> Like contact:phone vs phone.
>
To clarify: I advocate avoiding known messes like
phone vs contact:phone - this one will not be ever
resolved and that it is OK.

There are many open tagging issues (or simply things to map)
where attention is more useful.

-- signed, person who is probably spending too much
time on tagfidling anyway.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 11, 2020, 03:47 by cjmal...@mail.com:

> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> And yet you, and others, keep saying it.  "Deprecate" means "express
>> disapproval of."  In the context of OSM, it means "phase out."  That
>> is,
>> eradicate with the passage of time.  It may not be what you mean, but
>> it's what you keep saying.
>>
>
> Any yet what I described was a phase out with 3 steps.
>
"phase out with 3 steps",
"deprecate".
"get rid of",
"eliminate",
"gradually deprecating"

all mean that the plan is to eliminate the tag.

They subtly differ in how this elimination would
exactly work, but all describe process of
removing tag from use.

Number of steps, length of process is not changing that.

It is perfectly fine to deprecate/eliminate tags that are
harmful, I started or helped this process with numerous ones.

But trying to eliminate tag and avoiding calling it
deprecation/elimination is silly.

I would also advocate to focus on parts of tagging that
are without known long-standing gridlock. 

Like contact:phone vs phone.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 13:51, Marc M.  wrote:

> Le 11.05.20 à 14:42, Paul Allen a écrit :
> > On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:58, s8evq wrote:
> > What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:*
> > makes it easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one
> > go, instead of hard coding all the possible keys. What if next year
> > a new way of contacting comes up?
> >
> > For mappers, no purpose.  They use the editor preset
>
> your answer is precisely the *problem* in the question
> every new contact need a new preset in stead of query taginfo
> and show top X contact:*
>

Good point.  And, since we have hundreds of new ways of tagging contacts
appearing every day, very much needed.  Oh, we don't have new ways of
tagging contacts appearing every day.  Or even every month.  On average,
maybe once a year (if I'm being generous).  I'm not entirely convinced
this is a problem worth solving.

same problem for the user of the data. if somebody wants to display
> all the details of a shop, he has to make a hardcoded list of phone
> website... instead of being able to display all the contacts:* that
> the osm contributor has filled in.
>

Good point.  I can't count all the times I've wanted all the contact details
of a POI but NONE of the other details like the name, the address, what
type of POI it is, etc.  Well, actually, I can.  Zero.  OTOH, there are a
lot of times I've wanted to know more about a POI but not been
interested in the contact details.

But even if you're correct, why are the results of the query tool in
standard carto unsuited to your needs?  Are you going to propose
changes to the tool so that, if the user wishes, it returns only the
contact details and no other information about the POI?

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 02:48, Cj Malone  wrote:

> On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > And yet you, and others, keep saying it.  "Deprecate" means "express
> > disapproval of."  In the context of OSM, it means "phase out."  That
> > is,
> > eradicate with the passage of time.  It may not be what you mean, but
> > it's what you keep saying.
>
> Any yet what I described was a phase out with 3 steps.
>

"Phase out": "to discontinue the practice, production, or use of by phases.
intransitive verb. : to stop production or operation by phases."

So you explicitly state that you do not wish to get rid of the phone tag yet
continue to find different ways of implicilty saying that you wish to get
rid of the phone tag.  Is English not your first language?

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

Unless you get editor buy-in then your shiny new tag won't get used
by many people because it's not offered as an editor preset.  Because
it doesn't get used much, authors of editors will say they're not
including it as a preset because it's not popular.  You may not like
that.  I certainly don't like that.  But it's how it is.

>
> > Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except
> > we don't like automated edits.  But without cleaning it up, you make
> > database queries more complex.
>
> I don't have any arguments against automated edits, bulk edits, machine
> assisted edits. In any dataset they are needed, especially one this
> massive. But it's not a fight I have the effort to fight right now.
>

Very wise.  Because you have to have very, very strong justification for
automated edits in OSM.  The most fundamental precondition is that
ALL a=b change to x=y.  And even if you satisfy that precondition,
it probably won't be permitted.  And we already know you don't
satisfy that precondition because the phone number for a phone
box is not a contact phone number and various websites are
not contact pages.

>
> > I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone
> > number.
> > If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number.
> > If
> > I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for
> > the business.  What extra utility does having contact:phone provide?
> > And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags
> > to
> > fix?
>
> That's just one edge case with the phone tag. Another one being phone
> on parking. Is that the number you call to pay, or is it the number you
> call to contact the operator because there is something wrong.
>

So it's a phone number you call if you want to talk to somebody a POI.
That's an edge case how?

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

I don't think you've found any edge cases yet.  I don't think there are any
edge cases unless you can find one where a contact phone number isn't
a phone number.

Amusingly, the more arguments you put forward the more convinced I am
that contact:* is a horrible idea without merit.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

Le 11.05.20 à 14:42, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:58, s8evq wrote:
> What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:*
> makes it easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one
> go, instead of hard coding all the possible keys. What if next year
> a new way of contacting comes up?
> 
> For mappers, no purpose.  They use the editor preset

your answer is precisely the *problem* in the question
every new contact need a new preset in stead of query taginfo
and show top X contact:*
same problem for the user of the data. if somebody wants to display
all the details of a shop, he has to make a hardcoded list of phone
website... instead of being able to display all the contacts:* that
the osm contributor has filled in.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 10:58, s8evq  wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2020 02:10:12 +0100, Paul Allen  wrote:
> > I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived.  But fine, if
> > you want it then use it.  Just please stop suggesting that we
> > deprecate website=* and phone=*.
>
> What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:* makes
> it easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one go, instead
> of hard coding all the possible keys. What if next year a new way of
> contacting comes up?
>

Since you ask...

What purpose does that actually serve?

For mappers, no purpose.  They use the editor preset and get phone=* or
contact:phone=* depending upon what the author of the editor thinks is the
right
way to do it.  No purpose for mappers who enter raw tags either - it's easy
enough to create a wiki page for "Contact Tags" and list phone, website,
fax, telepathy, etc.  Maybe, just maybe, for newbies who aren't sure of
what contact tags are available and want to be able to type "contact"
into the editor and get a list of possibilities, but some editors do
searches of brief tag descriptions that would achieve the same thing.  But
I'd argue most mappers operate on "I have a phone number for this POI,
how do I tag it?" rather than "What contact methods are available for
POIs, when I know that I'll check if this POI has any of them."

For users, little purpose.  They use the query tool in standard carto (or
similar
tool in other cartos) and get a list of tags.  If a POI had dozens of tags
then
grouping the contact tags in one place might be slightly helpful, but in
most
cases not.

For carto, no purpose.  They ignore tags unless somebody has specifically
put in handling code for them.  They don't (and probably won't) render POIs
with some form of contact tag any differently, so it doesn't matter if they
don't code for phone=* or don't code for contact:phone=* because not
coding to handle a tag requires no effort.

For data queries, maybe a purpose.  But first you have to convince me that
anybody would have reason to perform such a query.  Bring up overpass-turbo,
move the map to a particular area, and find all the POIs which have any
method
of contacting them.  Why would anybody want to do this?  And if you can
come up with a reason, how often is this likely to happen?  Often enough
that it's worth all the hassle of contact:*=* so that somebody can build a
query on "contact:*=*" rather than "phone=* and website=* and fax=*
and whatever=*"?

The only purpose I've seen anybody mention for contact:phone is
for a phone number to contact a car park's operator.  And even that
doesn't really seem justified.  It's a phone number for a POI.  The
phone isn't physically at the POI but it's the number you dial to talk
to the operator of the POI.  I don't see any reason to make a
distinction.

I've yet to see anybody explain what a phone number is for other than to
contact somebody.  There are fax numbers, but they would be better
handled by fax=*.  As Gertrude Stein didn't say, a phone number is
a phone number is a phone number.

The contact: namespace seems to be taxonomic hierarchy for taxonomic
hierarchy's sake.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

Le 11.05.20 à 11:29, Shawn K. Quinn a écrit :
> In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on
> phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something useful?

it look like a ref, and a ref is useful to link 2 databases,
including if we put it in the ref key :)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[s8evq]

+1
I find you wrote down very sound and logical arguments. 
Splitting phone into "a way of contacting a business" and "a telephone number 
of a phonebooth" sounds logic.

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

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

On Mon, 11 May 2020 01:36:51 +0100, Cj Malone  wrote:

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



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[s8evq]

Hi Paul,

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

What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that contact:* makes it 
easier for data consumers to gather all contact info in one go, instead of hard 
coding all the possible keys. What if next year a new way of contacting comes 
up?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Shawn K. Quinn]

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

Why should we split these out?

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

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. Mai 2020 um 02:38 Uhr schrieb Cj Malone :

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




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

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Cj Malone]

On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 03:27 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 11, 2020, 02:36 by cjmal...@mail.com:
> > On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
> > >
> > > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.
> >
> > I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> > arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
>
> But "gradually deprecating" means that this tags will be eliminated,
> what seems to me to have the same meaning as "wanting to get rid of".
>
> Whatever it will done in 24 hours or 24 years is not changing that
> goal
> of tag deprecation is to utterly eliminate it.

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

The goal is quantifiable and usable data.

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Cj Malone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

May 11, 2020, 02:36 by cjmal...@mail.com:

> On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
>>
>> And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.
>>
>
> I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
>
But "gradually deprecating" means that this tags will be eliminated,
what seems to me to have the same meaning as "wanting to get rid of".

Whatever it will done in 24 hours or 24 years is not changing that goal
of tag deprecation is to utterly eliminate it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 01:38, Cj Malone  wrote:

> On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
> >
> > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.
>
> I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Cj Malone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:55, Cj Malone  wrote:

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

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

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


I'm OK with that.

and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
>

And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.  I hope
that was merely careless working.


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

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

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

I'm not saying that either of those groups will insist it's one or the
other,
merely that it seems possible to me.
-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


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

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

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Cj Malone]

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

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

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

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:00, Cj Malone  wrote:

> > But not all of them are necessarily contacts.  I've added URLs for
> > historic buildings that give more information about the
> > building.  There is nobody to talk to about it.  I've added websites
> > for companies; there is a contact page on that website but the URL
> > I've given is for the company website as a whole.
>
> Surely that's an argument for new tags as well as contact:website, for
> example description:website where a user agent could give users a "Read
> more" link. A website tag is generic, which has the obvious benefit of
> used widely and easily, but more precise tags like contact:website give
> user agents much more flexibility.
>
> It was an argument against replacing website=* with contact:website=*
as some seemed to be proposing.  If you wish to propose more
*:website=* tags that is fine b me (I can use any I find useful and
ignore the rest).

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

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Cj Malone]

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

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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 22:59, Marc M.  wrote:

> Le 04.05.20 à 23:19, Paul Allen a écrit :
> >
> > Except we don't all agree that they are for the same thing,
> > not even phone and contact:phone
>
> The only solution is to create other tags to better describe
> this difference.
>

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

>
> > I've added URLs for historic buildings
> > that give more information about the building.
>
> as for the plate, imho I would use website, but maybe url=*
> you said you added an url :)
>

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

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

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

and email<>contact:email ?
>

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

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

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

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

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

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

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

Regards, Marc

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

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


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

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

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

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

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

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

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Philip Barnes]

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

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

Phil (trigpoint)

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

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 21:59, Marc M.  wrote:

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

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

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

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

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

Hello,

Le 04.05.20 à 14:48, Paul Allen a écrit :
> I haven't seen them.

the two reasons are:

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

- using namespace for contact: (like we do with addr:) it's useful for
the use of the data (you can group them without having to hard-code
all the possible variants that may exist in the world).
it's obviously also useful for an editor (it could display a preset
listing all the contact keys:* without having to hard-code them in
the preset).

Regards,
Marc

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[s8evq]

I think you're exaggerating here. Just press 'delete' on you mail client if the 
discussion doesn't interest you and that's it.

On Mon, 4 May 2020 06:13:42 -0700 (MST), Richard Fairhurst 
 wrote:

> As someone with admin access over this mailing list, I request that you do
> not keep bringing back proposals which were extensively debated beforehand
> and generally rejected. It wastes everyone's time.
> 
> I don't particularly want to start banhammering people from the list but
> will do so if necessary.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Richard
> 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Sören alias Valor Naram via Tagging]

> It is clear that "contact:" despite what the wiki says, will always mean "contact", while websites, facebook pages and whatever else is suggested to be put under "contact" will not always have a contacting possibility (and will often have a broader scope than just "contact").Then we can deprecate contact:facebook, contact:twitter and the other social media platforms inside the `contact` prefix? If they have a broader scope than just "contact" this should be fine no? And then deprecating Key:phone, Key:email and Key:website in favor of their sisters should be no problem. The keys can be translated via a mechanical edit.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' schemeFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 17:46 Uhr schrieb Sören alias Valor Naram :> because some will feel that A and contact:A are not the same thingWell, the specification says that they are the same thing by mentioning both are used to tag contact information. If they're not the same thing then the ones saying that should explain why and name some examples so we can discuss and find a solution for these cases (if any). But also from these people I did not get any input.please read up the former discussion, this was already discussed. It is clear that "contact:" despite what the wiki says, will always mean "contact", while websites, facebook pages and whatever else is suggested to be put under "contact" will not always have a contacting possibility (and will often have a broader scope than just "contact").CheersMartin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Dave F via Tagging]

Hi

 I request to replace all occurrence of the prefixed versions of the 
contact keys, as it adds no quality to the OSM database




On 04/05/2020 11:53, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:

   I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the 
contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be replaced with the 
prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . 
The current situation harms our database in a way that makes our data less 
useful. In order to be successful we need to standardize to the contact:
  prefix. No more multiple keys for the exact same purpose with just
different names!


But there would still be "multiple keys" (contact:phone, :contact:email etc)


  Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has
experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that mappers
don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take action and
  to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.


  * Normalisation of that data is required. Key:phone must be
translated to Key:contact:phone or backwards.


No it doesn't


  * Having two schemes leads to confusion of mappers (especially
for newbies) which they should use.


Then get rid the the 'contact' schema

DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 17:46 Uhr schrieb Sören alias Valor Naram <
valin...@gmx.net>:

> > because some will feel that A and contact:A are not the same thing
>
> Well, the specification says that they are the same thing by mentioning
> both are used to tag contact information. If they're not the same thing
> then the ones saying that should explain why and name some examples so we
> can discuss and find a solution for these cases (if any). But also from
> these people I did not get any input.




please read up the former discussion, this was already discussed. It is
clear that "contact:" despite what the wiki says, will always mean
"contact", while websites, facebook pages and whatever else is suggested to
be put under "contact" will not always have a contacting possibility (and
will often have a broader scope than just "contact").

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Sören alias Valor Naram]

> - because too much use (saying that a problem that's too big doesn't need to be solved is pretty absurd).A mechanical edit could convert them to their respective `contact:` subkey sisters and solves that big problem. Also editor and customers changing their presets is not that difficult because in OSM new schemes are approved all the time and some others deprecated and translated to a new scheme (if possible and if it can be done securely then via mechanical edit)> because some will feel that A and contact:A are not the same thingWell, the specification says that they are the same thing by mentioning both are used to tag contact information. If they're not the same thing then the ones saying that should explain why and name some examples so we can discuss and find a solution for these cases (if any). But also from these people I did not get any input.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' schemeFrom: "Marc M." To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: Hello,Le 04.05.20 à 12:53, Valor Naram via Tagging a écrit :> replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the contact keysalthough I totally agree with the idea, I can't imagine a global massagreement to make it happen.as in the previous version, you're going to have opinions against it:- because too much use (saying that a problem that's too big doesn'tneed to be solved is pretty absurd).- because some will feel that A and contact:A are not the same thingRegards,Marc___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Sören alias Valor Naram]

> As an alternative, why not get rid of the contact:* versions since mostpeople are not using them?I tried this in the first round and people rejected it with the reason that this is the newer one which should be used~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' schemeFrom: "Shawn K. Quinn" To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: On 5/4/20 05:53, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:> I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of> the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be> replaced with the prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone,> Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . The current situation harms> our database in a way that makes our data less useful. In order to be> successful we need to standardize to the contact: prefix.> No more multiple keys for the exact same purpose with just> different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has > experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that> mappers don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take> action and to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.As an alternative, why not get rid of the contact:* versions since mostpeople are not using them?-- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.comhttp://www.skqrecordquest.com___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 5/4/20 05:53, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:
> I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of
> the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be
> replaced with the prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone,
> Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . The current situation harms
> our database in a way that makes our data less useful. In order to be
> successful we need to standardize to the contact: prefix.> No more multiple 
> keys for the exact same purpose with just
> different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has 
> experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that
> mappers don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take
> action and to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.

As an alternative, why not get rid of the contact:* versions since most
people are not using them?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 16:05 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Martin Dicke <
sebastianmartindi...@gmx.de>:

> The non prefixed tags should be replaced manually to avoid such
> problems. When a website is not a contact website then it should be
> prefixed with another suitable namespace. It would be more useful than
> just use always website.



if there was general agreement to add the prefix, there would be more
efficient means to do it. For example to my knowledge, both of the most
used editors, iD and JOSM, apply the shorter version of these tags in their
presets. Also many contributors add these shorter tags manually. The last
voting on the issue has demonstrated that there isn't a majority supporting
a transition to contact:-prefix. Your suggestion would only contribute to
more tag fragmentation.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 15:05, Sebastian Martin Dicke <
sebastianmartindi...@gmx.de> wrote:

> The non prefixed tags should be replaced manually to avoid such
> problems. When a website is not a contact website then it should be
> prefixed with another suitable namespace. It would be more useful than
> just use always website.
>

I'm trying to think of any website I have ever seen that ONLY provided
contact details.  I've seen web pages that are contact details only,
but those might better be tagged as URL.  Websites are the whole
enchilada, in my opinion.  A page of contact details is a page within
a website.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 4. Mai 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Richard Fairhurst <
rich...@systemed.net>:

> As someone with admin access over this mailing list, I request that you do
> not keep bringing back proposals which were extensively debated beforehand
> and generally rejected. It wastes everyone's time.
>


Thank you Richard! I much appreciate the way you exercise your admin
privileges here. Only in the extreme cases a call to reason.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Sebastian Martin Dicke]

The non prefixed tags should be replaced manually to avoid such
problems. When a website is not a contact website then it should be
prefixed with another suitable namespace. It would be more useful than
just use always website.


Regards


Sebastian


Am 04.05.20 um 13:48 schrieb Alexey Zakharenkov:


I agree that phone and contact:phone denote the same thing and should
be collapsed into one. But a website doesn't always contain contact
information like websites devoted natural/man-made features. IMO,
noone should convert 'website' tag for this memorial
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1416386078 into 'contact:website',
so global automatic tag replacement would be an error in this case.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Richard Fairhurst]

Soren Reinecke wrote:
> I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed 
> versions of the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. 
> Key:website to be replaced with the prefixed ones like 
> Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website

As someone with admin access over this mailing list, I request that you do
not keep bringing back proposals which were extensively debated beforehand
and generally rejected. It wastes everyone's time.

I don't particularly want to start banhammering people from the list but
will do so if necessary.

Thank you.

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

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 13:37, Sören alias Valor Naram 
wrote:

> I didn't heard any good reason why not to change to `contact:` scheme.
>

Because too many people disagree with you.

I'm not saying that they're right.  I'm not saying that you're wrong.  I'm
saying that they will vote against your proposal as they did before,
and it will fail (again).

It's not for them to convince you that they have a good reason not to
change it, it's for you to convince them that they are wrong.  You failed
the last time and I doubt you'll do any better this time.  Not unless
you have better arguments than you had last time, but if you do
I haven't seen them.

However irrational you think they are, however irrational they may
actually be, too many people disagree with you for this to happen.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

Le 04.05.20 à 13:48, Alexey Zakharenkov a écrit :
> noone should convert 'website' tag for this memorial
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1416386078 into 'contact:website'

indeed, it's not contact:website and but also not a website
it's just a picture and 2 lines of text as there are probably
a lot of them. it's not THE website of this object.
so the problem with this object is that it shouldn't have
a website tag at all :) image=* ?

vehicle=boat is also wrong. vehicle is an acces tag.
maybe memorial=sculpture or memorial=boat.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Sören alias Valor Naram]

I didn't heard any good reason why not to change to `contact:` scheme.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' schemeFrom: Marc Gemis To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Are you planning on repeating this request every 5 months?I thought https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phonefailed.Wasn't the outcome about 50-50? How will you ever convince half of thevoters to accepts the other scheme?regardsmOn Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:>>>   I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be replaced with the prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . The current situation harms our database in a way that makes our data less useful. In order to be successful we need to standardize to the contact:>  prefix. No more multiple keys for the exact same purpose with just> different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has> experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that mappers> don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take action and>  to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.>>> Having two keys for the same purpose (the current behaviour) has no advantages but many disadvantages:>  * Data customers need to be aware of both tags to cover all> requested and available information. So to get telephone numbers they> need to look for Key:phone and Key:contact:phone . This makes a bad> impression.>>  * Normalisation of that data is required. Key:phone must be> translated to Key:contact:phone or backwards. It is good to prevent the> need of normalisation through standardisation as far as possible to> prevent errors and misinterpretations from happening.>>  * Having two schemes leads to confusion of mappers (especially> for newbies) which they should use. Some need clear guidance ( e.g. On> request I created a translation table for mappers of the old diaper key> to help them to switch to the new Key:changing_table as you can see> here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table#Comparison_with_the_deprecated_diaper.3D.2A_key . I also notified some of the mappers and stakeholders about that change)>> See also:> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7566> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19184> OpenStreetMap contact schema unification>> --> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram>>> Developer (not Founder) of the Babykarte: https://babykarte.github.io> Participating in "MapDiscover" project: https://mapdiscover.org> "Community Support" for Trufi Association:> https://trufi-association.org> Documentation for Trufi Communities on mapping bus routes:> https://github.com/trufi-association/mapping-documentation>>> Ein Gag zu Hamsterkäufen: https://klopapier.mapdiscover.de>>> ___> Tagging mailing list> Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc M.]

Hello,

Le 04.05.20 à 12:53, Valor Naram via Tagging a écrit :
> replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the contact keys

although I totally agree with the idea, I can't imagine a global mass
agreement to make it happen.
as in the previous version, you're going to have opinions against it:
- because too much use (saying that a problem that's too big doesn't
need to be solved is pretty absurd).
- because some will feel that A and contact:A are not the same thing

Regards,
Marc

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Marc Gemis]

Are you planning on repeating this request every 5 months?

I thought 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
failed.
Wasn't the outcome about 50-50? How will you ever convince half of the
voters to accepts the other scheme?


regards

m

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Valor Naram via Tagging
 wrote:
>
>
>   I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the 
> contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be replaced with the 
> prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website 
> . The current situation harms our database in a way that makes our data less 
> useful. In order to be successful we need to standardize to the contact:
>  prefix. No more multiple keys for the exact same purpose with just
> different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has
> experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that mappers
> don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take action and
>  to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.
>
>
> Having two keys for the same purpose (the current behaviour) has no 
> advantages but many disadvantages:
>  * Data customers need to be aware of both tags to cover all
> requested and available information. So to get telephone numbers they
> need to look for Key:phone and Key:contact:phone . This makes a bad
> impression.
>
>  * Normalisation of that data is required. Key:phone must be
> translated to Key:contact:phone or backwards. It is good to prevent the
> need of normalisation through standardisation as far as possible to
> prevent errors and misinterpretations from happening.
>
>  * Having two schemes leads to confusion of mappers (especially
> for newbies) which they should use. Some need clear guidance ( e.g. On
> request I created a translation table for mappers of the old diaper key
> to help them to switch to the new Key:changing_table as you can see
> here: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table#Comparison_with_the_deprecated_diaper.3D.2A_key
>  . I also notified some of the mappers and stakeholders about that change)
>
> See also:
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7566
> https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19184
> OpenStreetMap contact schema unification
>
> --
> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
> Developer (not Founder) of the Babykarte: https://babykarte.github.io
> Participating in "MapDiscover" project: https://mapdiscover.org
> "Community Support" for Trufi Association:
> https://trufi-association.org
> Documentation for Trufi Communities on mapping bus routes:
> https://github.com/trufi-association/mapping-documentation
>
>
> Ein Gag zu Hamsterkäufen: https://klopapier.mapdiscover.de
>
>
> ___
> 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] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Alexey Zakharenkov]

 04.05.2020, 13:54, "Valor Naram via Tagging" :  I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be replaced with the prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . The current situation harms our database in a way that makes our data less useful. In order to be successful we I agree that phone and contact:phone denote the same thing and should be collapsed into one. But a website doesn't always contain contact information like websites devoted natural/man-made features. IMO, noone should convert 'website' tag for this memorial https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1416386078 into 'contact:website', so global automatic tag replacement would be an error in this case. Best regards,Alexey___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[Valor Naram via Tagging]

  I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the 
contact keys like Key:phone, Key:email. Key:website to be replaced with the 
prefixed ones like Key:contact:phone, Key:contact:email, Key:contact:website . 
The current situation harms our database in a way that makes our data less 
useful. In order to be successful we need to standardize to the contact:
 prefix. No more multiple keys for the exact same purpose with just
different names! Make tagging more orthogonal! As someone who has
experience in database and normalisation it hurts to see that mappers
don't know how to take care of a database. It is time to take action and
 to clean up so OSM data gets more useful.


Having two keys for the same purpose (the current behaviour) has no advantages 
but many disadvantages:
 * Data customers need to be aware of both tags to cover all
requested and available information. So to get telephone numbers they
need to look for Key:phone and Key:contact:phone . This makes a bad
impression.

 * Normalisation of that data is required. Key:phone must be
translated to Key:contact:phone or backwards. It is good to prevent the
need of normalisation through standardisation as far as possible to
prevent errors and misinterpretations from happening.

 * Having two schemes leads to confusion of mappers (especially
for newbies) which they should use. Some need clear guidance ( e.g. On
request I created a translation table for mappers of the old diaper key
to help them to switch to the new Key:changing_table as you can see
here: 
​https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table#Comparison_with_the_deprecated_diaper.3D.2A_key
 . I also notified some of the mappers and stakeholders about that change) 

See also:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7566
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19184
OpenStreetMap contact schema unification

--
~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram


Developer (not Founder) of the Babykarte: https://babykarte.github.io
Participating in "MapDiscover" project: https://mapdiscover.org
"Community Support" for Trufi Association:
https://trufi-association.org
Documentation for Trufi Communities on mapping bus routes:
https://github.com/trufi-association/mapping-documentation


Ein Gag zu Hamsterkäufen: https://klopapier.mapdiscover.de


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging