I'm not sure how to proceed now. Should I create a proposal for this?
Am Samstag, 1. Dezember 2018, 12:16:42 MEZ hat bkil
Folgendes geschrieben:
You have the choice to disagree with micromapping and ignore it. Many such
decisions are made on a local level, for example when executing
You have the choice to disagree with micromapping and ignore it. Many such
decisions are made on a local level, for example when executing mapping
parties.
We help define such keys in a consistent manner so *others* may map such
micro features. We are not encouraging others to do micromapping
+1 You're my hero!
To clarify: my contribution was about making right (/according to my point of
view, of course/!) something that I thought had issues, but in a general way
I'm totally with you and I'm finding a little bit crazy the level of details
that someone want to use in the description
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 02:19, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Right! Too many payments! :-) To spare some bytes it could be: payment:
> sms:ExampleApp:code=. What do you think?
>
I would think that it shouldn't be up to OSM to list all the ways someone
can pay for parking, down to which app to use or
sent from a phone
> On 29. Nov 2018, at 17:25, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Languages must be extensible...
there’s always a way to extend ;-)
Shorter tags are more convenient for mapping and make it more likely someone
will add it. Language, like our tags, usually has context, a ref on a road
sent from a phone
> On 29. Nov 2018, at 17:20, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Different services/clearinghouses could require different codes... or not? :-/
it may depend on the service, if needed you can add deeply structured tags of
course, but sometimes there will be just one number which is
I mean, today maybe you have just one service/clearinghouse and a simple ref:
could do, but then tomorrow a new service/clearinghouse requiring a different
code is added.
Then you must "namespace" the second code, but the first... stay un-namespaced?
Languages must be extensible...
Sergio
On 2018-11-29 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> maybe just “ref”, unless it is different? We are using ref for example for
> bus stops where you can use this code to dynamically query an api for bus
> arrival times. As long as it is just one reference number, there’s no need to
> declare 5
Hi Martin!
On 2018-11-29 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=
>
>
> Does not look very sustainable, are we going to mass retag all of these if
> the number changes? I agree it might be useful to have this information, but
> it shouldn’t need to be tagged on
sent from a phone
On 29. Nov 2018, at 17:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=
>>
>
>
> Does not look very sustainable, are we going to mass retag all of these if
> the number changes? I agree it might be useful to have this information, but
> it shouldn’t
sent from a phone
> On 28. Nov 2018, at 21:14, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> payment:sms=yes
> payment:sms:WhateverPayApp=yes
>
+1
> payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=
>
Does not look very sustainable, are we going to mass retag all of these if the
number changes? I agree it might be
sent from a phone
> On 28. Nov 2018, at 21:07, bkil wrote:
>
> I don't recommend using payment:pay_by_phone=* or
> payment:contactless=* due to the sheer number of incompatible
> different payment solutions (see wiki).
I agree, these are bad because there are too many alternative systems
Don't you see it *possible* that sms payment can be made through different
clearinghouses/operators? Really?
Cheers!
On 2018-11-29 14:13, Michael Brandtner wrote:
> If I pay per SMS, then I don't pay per app. It doesn't make sense to have
> both in the same key. I do like bkil's suggestions
If I pay per SMS, then I don't pay per app. It doesn't make sense to have both
in the same key. I do like bkil's suggestions but do think that the tags should
be as specific as possible, even if that means to have multiple keys with the
same value.
So for
Sorry, but it should be:
payment:sms=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp=yes
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:contact=
payment:sms:WhateverPayApp:ref:payment=
because, sooner or later, multiple payment options/clearingouse/apps could be
supported and each should have its info.
The "ref:"
payment:sms=yes
payment:WhateverPayApp=yes
contact:sms=
ref:payment=
As an alternative, ref:sms=* would also work for me, though I think
it's redundant if the code is the same for all payment options.
ref:payment:sms=* sounds a bit excessive, but would be the most
correct tagging. However, OSM
On 21 November 2018 12:45:30 GMT, Michael Brandtner
wrote:
>Philip Barnes schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag,
>20.November 2018:
>
>> I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to
>me implies using your phone for contactless payment.
>But wouldn't that be payment:contactless?
>
> I already have trouble imagining that there are mobile apps so badly
> made that it asks the user to transcribe the parking ref instead
> of finding it by geolocation
They do geolocation and suggest the ref. However, in some cases they
suggest the ref of a neighbouring zone. That zone can have
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:04 PM marc marc wrote:
I already have trouble imagining that there are mobile apps so badly
> made that it asks the user to transcribe the parking ref instead
> of finding it by geolocation
>
Then you have not tried as many badly-designed apps as I have. None of
them
Le 21. 11. 18 à 16:33, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:21 PM marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 21. 11. 18 à 13:39, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> > it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app
> or sms.
>
> payment:sms=yes or payment:sms=
>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:21 PM marc marc wrote:
> Le 21. 11. 18 à 13:39, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> > it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app or sms.
>
> payment:sms=yes or payment:sms=
> payment:=yes
>
> > ref:payment:app=12345
> > ref:payment:sms=12345
>
>
Le 21. 11. 18 à 13:39, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an app or sms.
payment:sms=yes or payment:sms=
payment:=yes
> ref:payment:app=12345
> ref:payment:sms=12345
ref=12345 look enough, isn't it ?
Philip Barnes schrieb am 23:29 Dienstag, 20.November
2018:
> I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to me
> implies using your phone for contactless payment.
But wouldn't that be payment:contactless?
> The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
So your
Am Dienstag, 20. November 2018, 23:32:40 MEZ hat marc marc
Folgendes geschrieben:
> it's a ref specific to this parking to be entered in an app ?
> or a
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment#Payment_via_phone ?
Yes, it's a ref specific to this parking lot to be entered into an
Le 20. 11. 18 à 22:51, Michael Brandtner a écrit :
> this is my first message to the mailing list
welcome
> a specific number that has to be entered when paying with the mobile device
it's a ref specific to this parking to be entered in an app ?
or a
I am not 100% sure that mobile payment is the correct term, that to me implies
using your phone for contactless payment.
The English term used in these cases is Pay by Phone.
Here payment can be made using coins, debit/credit cards (contactless or chip
and pin) so I must admit I have ignored
26 matches
Mail list logo
