On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 01:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
In Australia most, if not all, landlines will not process SMS calls. They
> may not take video calls, etc.
>
By default, the same is true of landlines in the UK. But BT (and possibly)
others offer text
services with landlines:
On 26/09/19 05:34, Colin Smale wrote:
On 2019-09-25 21:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
before number portability was introduced, a landline was more
connected to a place than to a person/business, while mobile phones
always have been personal. Big companies may be different, but places
with
On 2019-09-25 21:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> before number portability was introduced, a landline was more connected to a
> place than to a person/business, while mobile phones always have been
> personal. Big companies may be different, but places with small businesses
> often keep the
sent from a phone
> On 25. Sep 2019, at 18:02, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> It is very much on topic because it is the basis of whether or not there is
> any point in making
> a distinction between a mobile and a landline. If there are no charge
> differences then they're
> both just phone
That is definitely not what I want. I was just picking up the suggestions made from within this list.Yes, the current Key:phone wiki page provides a way to tag those cases we're talking about which I am going to describe further:- `phone:` Phone number that can be reached from just within the
On 2019-09-25 20:51, Paul Allen wrote:
> What Colin suggested was that PERHAPS we need to deal with the situation
> where the
> phone has one number when dialled from within the same country but a
> different number
> when dialled internationally. What he failed to notice is that the wiki
>
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 19:54, Philip Barnes wrote:
> In the UK it is easy to tell a mobile number, I would not be happy getting
> a builder who only has a mobile number. It suggests lack of permanent
> location.
>
Or a one-man-and-a-dog operation and he's not managed to train the dog to
answer
In the UK it is easy to tell a mobile number, I would not be happy getting a
builder who only has a mobile number. It suggests lack of permanent location.
Phil (trigpoint)
On Wednesday, 25 September 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 17:00, Valor Naram wrote:
>
> > We should not
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 18:08, Valor Naram wrote:
> So you suggest `phone:international` and `phone` beside of the other keys
> `phone:press`, `phone:night`, `phone:emergency`?
>
Every time somebody suggest that we don't need all the phone variants that
can be
found in the wild, you pop up
So you suggest `phone:international` and `phone` beside of the other keys `phone:press`, `phone:night`, `phone:emergency`?~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changingFrom: Colin Smale To:
On 2019-09-25 18:02, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 17:00, Valor Naram wrote:
>
>> We should not talk any longer about charging plans (which provider and when
>> will apply different charges to whom) because we're difting off --> going
>> Off-Topic.
>
> It is very much on topic
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 17:00, Valor Naram wrote:
> We should not talk any longer about charging plans (which provider and
> when will apply different charges to whom) because we're difting off -->
> going Off-Topic.
>
It is very much on topic because it is the basis of whether or not there is
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 16:11, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-09-25 16:08, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> In the UK, people can tell that from the area code.
>
>
> What about the cases where calls to customers on the same provider are
> free? In general you have no way of knowing who is on which provider.
We should not talk any longer about charging plans (which provider and when will apply different charges to whom) because we're difting off --> going Off-Topic.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page
On 2019-09-25 16:08, Paul Allen wrote:
> In the UK, people can tell that from the area code.
What about the cases where calls to customers on the same provider are
free? In general you have no way of knowing who is on which provider.
And thanks to number portability it is getting shuffled at a
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:30, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
right, you might be charged differently according to your plan / the kind
> of device you are calling from. There may be also more distinctions (e.g.
> local numbers cheaper),
>
Yep. All those things and more. Scott Adams (the Dilbert
Am Mi., 25. Sept. 2019 um 14:10 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:04, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't see the problem, can you explain?
>>
>
> [Note: some simplifications ahead. Broadly true but there are many
> exceptions in
> reality.]
>
> In the UK, calling
So we're good to keep `phone:mobile` for mappers who know if the number is a mobile one or landline.We can keep `phone:mobile` for explicit ones where you can say to 100% this is a mobile phone number and will be *generally* charged as such.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor NaramPS: Don't be
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:04, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I don't see the problem, can you explain?
>
[Note: some simplifications ahead. Broadly true but there are many
exceptions in
reality.]
In the UK, calling rom landlines, calls to mobile numbers are more
expensive than calls
to
Am Di., 24. Sept. 2019 um 13:17 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> So the distinction of mobile and landline is a problem. Is there any
> possibility to distinct between landline and mobile also in Italy?
I don't see the problem, can you explain? By the way,
Also you can text message (SMS) a mobile phone, but not a landline, in
most cases. But perhaps this could be better distinguished with a
different tag?
On 9/25/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Some people are still paranoid about not ringing mobiles as it will "cost
> too much".
>
> Thanks
>
>
Some people are still paranoid about not ringing mobiles as it will "cost
too much".
Thanks
Graeme
On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 22:05, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-09-24 13:15, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:
>
> So the distinction of mobile and landline is a problem. Is there any
> possibility to
On 2019-09-24 13:15, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:
> So the distinction of mobile and landline is a problem. Is there any
> possibility to distinct between landline and mobile also in Italy?
I don't understand why it would be necessary to make that distinction.
What I want to know, is which
So the distinction of mobile and landline is a problem. Is there any possibility to distinct between landline and mobile also in Italy?CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changingFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone
> On 23. Sep 2019, at 16:19, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> Here in Italy you may dial a number that looks like a landline but is in
> reality a mobile number.
> I would very much prefer a list of numbers, and not have to do tricks like
> phone_1, phone_2 ... but also not to
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 15:12, websi...@posteo.de wrote:
In my eyes even contact:website=* is not necessarily illogical as many
> websites provide means to get in contact with the POI.
>
Assuming you mean a contact form, as opposed to a web page giving phone
number,
e-mail address, and maybe
Distinction between landline and mobile is technical, and often not clear.
You cannot always distinguish mobile numbers form landline numbers by their
numbering scheme.
In the US here is no distinction as far as I am aware anyway.
Here in Italy you may dial a number that looks like a landline but
As a heavy user of the contact:*=* scheme I do not see an advantage to
mark it as deprecated.
At least not as long as we do not have a proper way to tag multiple
kinds of phone numbers and are dealing with non-sense like phone_2=*,
phone_3=* etc automatically generated by the iD editor.
One
On Saturday, September 21, 2019 2:49:28 PM EDT Valor Naram via Tagging wrote:
> I want to change the wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone throw a Proposal process
> to do certain things:
> - Deprecating `contact:phone`
I disagree with this idea. I believe that contact:phone
On 22/09/2019 11:20, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 19:49, Valor Naram via Tagging
wrote:
I want to change the wiki page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone throw a Proposal process
to do certain things:
- Protecting the wiki page against "wild changes"
We generally
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 19:49, Valor Naram via Tagging
wrote:
> I want to change the wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone throw a Proposal process
> to do certain things:
> - Protecting the wiki page against "wild changes"
We generally do not protect Wiki pages unless
> What about the other less frequently used duplicates contact:website, contact:email and contact:fax? Wouldn't it make more sense to deprecate them all instead of just one?At least `contact:email` will come. I prefer to work step for step.CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019, 20:51 Valor Naram via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> I want to change the wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone throw a Proposal process
> to do certain things:
> - Deprecating `contact:phone`
>
What about the other less frequently used
21 Sep 2019, 20:49 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> I want to change the wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone throw a Proposal process
> to do certain things:
> - Deprecating `contact:phone`
> - Promoting `phone`
> - Extending `phone`
> - Protecting the wiki page against
I want to change the wiki page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone throw a Proposal process
to do certain things:
- Deprecating `contact:phone`
- Promoting `phone`
- Extending `phone`
- Protecting the wiki page against "wild changes" in the interest of
the community (to maintain
35 matches
Mail list logo
