Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-09 Thread Philip Barnes
We also map the phone number of phoneboxes using phone=. We do not generally contact phoneboxes. Phil (trigpoint) On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging > > wrote: > > > > In that case it makes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Warin
On 07/10/19 21:00, Valor Naram wrote: > One problem with enforcing a single tag by mappers or preprocessing > data before putting it in the database is that if there are subtle distinctions they are > forever lost. Sven gave us a list of tags which have exact meaning. So no distinctions. No

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Oct 2019, at 22:08, Colin Smale wrote: > > So the subtlety you are referring to, is that some phone numbers routinely > connect to a recording instead of a human. > > How about phone:recorded_message=* which would leave room for phone=* for a > manned line, or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 20:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes , of course, sorry for stepping on your toes, I was being sarcastic to > better make the point, but I am aware that there is some use for this (even > around here it may occur that a house has a name but not a number). > Not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Colin Smale via Tagging
On 2019-10-08 21:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging > wrote: > >> In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. >> But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then >> either we find some way

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Valor Naram
`contact:phone` and `phone` are exactly for the same purpose, no differences just different names.See https://wiki.osm.org/Key:contact~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: &quo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging > wrote: > > In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. But > if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then either > we find some way to represent that using other

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:14, Paul Allen wrote: > > Housename may be useless where you live but for some of us it is essential. yes , of course, sorry for stepping on your toes, I was being sarcastic to better make the point, but I am aware that there is some use for this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Markus
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, 11:29 marc marc, wrote: > Le 07.10.19 à 23:07, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > let’s bury the contact: - prefix > > in this case, be logical and also propose to bury the prefix addr: > There's a difference between the two prefixes: several addr: tags together form a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
8 Oct 2019, 11:25 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 07.10.19 à 23:07, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > >> let’s bury the contact: - prefix >> > > in this case, be logical and also propose to bury the prefix addr: > Main difference is that contact: prefix has an alternative that is and always

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Colin Smale via Tagging
On 2019-10-08 13:25, Valor Naram wrote: > A short summary of what we have so far: > - Deprecation of `contact:phone` has some advantages: Key `phone` is used far > more often, Key `phone` is shorter to write and better to find in word > completion functions of editors like iD, Data users don't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: not to speak about addr:housenumber and addr:housename (the latter is > mostly useless > In some areas of the UK I've lived, all houses have numbers and a few also have names (which are viewed by many as an affectation). In rural

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Valor Naram
Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Joseph Eisenberg To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Re: “if you want to display a tab with all the means of contact, you just have to look for contact:”That doesn’t work, because “phone=“ is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: “if you want to display a tab with all the means of contact, you just have to look for contact:” That doesn’t work, because “phone=“ is much more popular and probably always will be, and the “contact:” prefix is not used terrible consistently (is a website actually a way to contact a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-08 Thread marc marc
Le 07.10.19 à 23:07, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > let’s bury the contact: - prefix in this case, be logical and also propose to bury the prefix addr: on the contrary, I believe that having a namespace to group the keys concerning the addr and another namespace to group the keys concerning

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-07 Thread Valor Naram
> let’s us all save a lot of typing and let’s bury the contact: - prefix.The time will come at least I will try to accomplish this.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: &

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Oct 2019, at 22:40, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the > complexity of the contact:* schema and the variety of both editors and > data consumers has proven to be a barrier to widespread acceptance. frankly I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-07 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:13 PM Michael Patrick wrote: > rarely are doers and users exposed to the full complexity, just the simple > subset of what is needed for a particular use case. I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the complexity of the contact:* schema and

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-07 Thread Michael Patrick
> There are too many on both sides who insist that their way is the one true way. Actually, there is something pretty close to 'one TRUE way'. There are some things in the Dataverse that are used by everybody, and everybody uses everybody else's stuff. And when the Internet arrived they set up

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-07 Thread Valor Naram
l Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Paul Allen To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 20:35, Sven Geggus <li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de> wrote: I fully agree with this.  In opencampingmap POI database I cu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-06 Thread Valor Naram
have one aggreement on storing data and not one. Two or more ways of storing literally the same thing is what I call inconsistent and bad for database usage.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message ----Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Paul Allen

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-06 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 at 20:35, Sven Geggus wrote: > > I fully agree with this. In opencampingmap POI database I currently do a > replacement of the following tags during database import: > > booking -> reservation > contact:phone -> phone > contact:fax -> fax > contact:website -> website >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-06 Thread Sven Geggus
Valor Naram wrote: > It's awful that we have two tags for the same puropose in our database and > that makes it more difficult for developers and researchers to work with > our data. I fully agree with this. In opencampingmap POI database I currently do a replacement of the following tags

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-06 Thread Valor Naram
I moved the content of my proposal to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone because I don't work with categories and therefore I did not realize the problem of two proposal in one page. As you can see I did not stayed into the "Proposed_features" Schema

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-10-05 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 28.09.19 10:31, Valor Naram wrote: > now I'm ready to open a new proposal which you can see here > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone#Second_proposal_.28pending.29 I agree with the basic goal of ending the co-existence of phone and contact:phone. I don't care that much

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-09-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Sep 2019, at 11:48, Chris Hill wrote: > > Removing seemingly similar tags and so homogenising the OSM database is a > very risky path to take. We risk removing subtlety and obscuring mappers' > real intent. The world we live in and try to represent with map data

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-09-28 Thread Valor Naram
g difference.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message ----Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Chris Hill To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: I disagree with this idea that we must remove similar tags for the sake of it.Anyone who actually uses OSM data (ra

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-09-28 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
28 Sep 2019, 11:48 by o...@raggedred.net: > I disagree with this idea that we must remove similar tags for the sake of it. > Similar - I agree. Exact duplicates - removal is a great idea! > Anyone who actually uses OSM data > Note that it is also about mappers that waste time on discovering

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-09-28 Thread Chris Hill
I disagree with this idea that we must remove similar tags for the sake of it. Anyone who actually uses OSM data (rather than people who just imagine using it) know that there are many steps and choices to make to achieve the end result. Often this involves combining data with various tags

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-09-28 Thread Andrew Hain
To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone) Hey, now I'm ready to open a new proposal which you can see here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone#Second_proposal_.28pending.29 I use the old proposal page for that but seperated content

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

2019-09-28 Thread Valor Naram
Hey, now I'm ready to open a new proposal which you can see here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone#Second_proposal_.28pending.29 I use the old proposal page for that but seperated content into section to keep the history intact. The content is based on the discussion at