On 2013-06-24 14:50, Serge Wroclawski wrote : > Usually the "url" tag is used for an organization's website. For > example, many musems, libraries, restaurants, etc. have an official > website. That's what the website (or url) tag is for (I think > "website" is actually preferred but url is just as good). I'd > generally not use a Google+ page for a site, just like I wouldn't use > a Facebook page, or a MySpace page, or a Twitter account, unless that > was the only site that exists, and is curated by the organization itself. I have suggested without much success that the value for *any* key defining an "organization" (or anything that can be defined with a web page) could, and should best, contain an URL. "contain" means that software displaying the value should auto-recognize an URL and make it clickable. There's no point in having the reader make a Google search for some text when an URL gives him the correct search result right away. For example: for "operator" as you can see it in www.waymarkedtrails.org/?zoom=14&lat=50.51045&lon=5.64918 <http://www.waymarkedtrails.org/?zoom=14&lat=50.51045&lon=5.64918> (open Routes window) I used http://www.sprimont.be/index.php?&id=23. <http://www.sprimont.be/index.php?&id=23> Lonvia did not recognize it as an ULR by lack of guidance. Тhe OSM relation page did. <http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2406099> But map readers are not supposed to open elation pages, are they?
Cheers, André.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
