+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 of OSM features, some of which, I think, should have very little to do with OSM (/I'm thinking of the //meticoulous description/mapping of //infrastructures of less than general interest. As I said elswere: should we map railroad ties too?/).
Thanks! Sergio On 2018-11-29 21:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 at 02:19, Sergio Manzi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > Right! Too many payments! :-) To spare some bytes it could be: > payment:sms:ExampleApp:code=<code to send>. 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 phone number to call / SMS. > > OSM should say that "this" area is paid parking & leave it at that - once the > driver parks their car, they walk over to the payment terminal & all the > necessary info is listed there, & updated as needed by the car park operator > - their problem, not our's! > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
