Hello again,
now the other way around:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
. I did some changes on the content level following Martin
Koppenhoefer's suggestions (
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-October/048818.html
).
This propos
Sören, may I suggest you set up a new page for the new proposal? It is
already a very long page, and readability would certainly benefit from a
more streamlined proposal page.
Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 00:01 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> You might also mention that office=notary can be used for a place that is
> only a notary.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dnotary
>
>
more precisely, a place that is a notary public
Hi Martin and others,The new proposal overwrites the old one. There's just the new content except the section "Vote 1". What I can do is putting everything in the "content" section into a new page. It is what you - Martin - suggested, outsourcing the "content" section?CheersSören Reinecke alias Val
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:43 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke <
tilmanreine...@yahoo.de>:
> Hi Martin and others,
>
> The new proposal overwrites the old one. There's just the new content
> except the section "Vote 1". What I can do is putting everything in the
> "content" section into a new page. It i
Sören Reinecke wrote:
> This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag
> for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is
> not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have
> two keys for the exact same purpose in use.
Please just kill me now.
Rich
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus wrote:
>
> In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the
> following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part
> of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path).
But isn't this exactly the same as we do for cycleway=lan
Did this, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone/content
and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone
.
But anyway I'm not quite happy about the section
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/cont
On 04/12/2019 12:01, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Sören Reinecke wrote:
This proposal tends to make Key:contact:phone the official tag
for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate Key:phone which is
not fitting in the idea of grouping keys. Anyway it's bad to have
two keys for the exact same purpose i
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:19, Andy Townsend wrote:
It'd also be good to see an explanation of why it's worth the time even
> going through this again - haven't we all got better things to do?
>
+1
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap
This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Allen
Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging]
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
>
-1
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetm
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
>>
>
-1
(For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with
the same meaning you need very very good reasons)
Are we going to have more individual votings about each of contact:website,
contact:fax, contact:dovecote, ... ?
>
> Surely we know from previous discussions that
>
>- some people prefer using "phone" as a key,
>- some people prefer "contact:phone"
>
>
as has been written by Andy, reiterat
Volker Schmidt :
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
>>>
>>
> (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with
> the same meaning you n
Some asked me to restore the old version, the new version which I want
to vote on can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone_2
id="-x-evo-selection-start-marker">
-Original Message-
From: S??ren Reinecke via Tagging
Reply-To: "Tag d
> (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with the same meaning you need very very good reasons)As a reminder how you voted on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone#Voting :I oppose this proposal. -- I am against deprecating a w
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag.
if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?
If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?
Cheers
Martin
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:42, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?
> If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?
>
Sensible points. Others have also made sensible arguments against this.
There is no
sign, from his responses, that any o
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 13:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis :
> I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping.
IMHO these are quite different, bicycles are generally considered vehicles
by the law and pedestrians are not. It doesn't seem to make sense to have
"consistency" here,
Sorry to have caused confusion:
I am against deprecating either of the two alternatives for the same reason.
Data consumers will have to live with that..
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 14:42, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> if it fails, will you try to d
On 04/12/2019 13:41, Sören Reinecke via Tagging wrote:
This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
OSM doesn't do deprecation of a well-used tag. It doesn't do
homogenisation for the sake of it. It doesn't do a new dressed-up vote
to get around a failed vote. You put
> if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags?This would be illogical. I think you did not get my point: I and others do not want multiple tags for one purpose. My goal therefore is to deprecate ONE of them. I do not care, if its "contact:phone" or "phone" we deprecate in the end.> If it wins,
> Others have also made sensible arguments against this.What kind of points? Am I something missing?Overview:- My first proposal: Deprecating "contact:phone" - rejected by community- Reason: "contact" prefix is more orthogonal- My second proposal: Deprecating "phone" - ongoing discussion-
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 16:11, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Others have also made sensible arguments against this.
>
> What kind of points? Am I something missing?
>
You appear to be missing EVERYTHING. Re-read the responses to this
thread. Then try
to unders
Sorry, Soeren,
when you are talking about two competing tagging methods for the same
thing, both of which have large existing usage, deprecating one of them
does not at all help you to achieve what your goal - they will remain in
use in parallel.
It would be a different story if you were to depre
> What part of 'No' don't you understand?Everything. Again: I proposed the deprecation of "contact:phone" in first place which has failed because the major tagging community decided so.Everything went logical according to my statement. In this row I try to propose the deprecation of "phone" and now
Hi there,
Disclaimer:
-I don't have much experience with OSM.
-I find the proposition of unifying the usage quite logical.
-Now that I've read some responses, I understand why the community could be
against.
However:
I'm amazed at how harsh people are against Sören. He's been putting some time
Welcome Martin,a mailing list like this is probably not the right place to get into the community. Instead head over to a group on Reddit, Telegram, Twitter, Facebook, Discord, IRC, Matrix etc.For Telegram see here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_centric_Telegram_accountsIf you tel
I totally agree. Soren and all others members don't disserve such comment. OSM is a project where everyone can submit its point of view and ask for voting. Even if some think they own the truth.Having said that I think the main topic has not been adressed. For me contact is a namespace. I would p
> And make sure osm wikidata handle namespace schemas?Implementing such handling can be done by the developers of mapping tools (JOSM, iD). I also thought about this: Editors converting wrong tags to the right tags e.g. `phone` to `contact:phone`. I'm also happy with shorthands as long as they are
On 12/3/2019 3:26 PM, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
I often found offices of lawyers, which are notaries, too, and office
sharings of lawyers and notaries. To tag this appropriate, I wrote a
proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/notary
Definition: Notary services off
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:18 PM Jmapb wrote:
> At least in the USA, there's some overlap between the sorts of places
> that offer copyshop services and the sorts of places that offer notary
> services. Notary services are also commonly found at banks, estate
> agents, travel agents, and, as you men
sent from a phone
>> On 4. Dec 2019, at 16:53, Sören Reinecke wrote:
>
> > If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms?
>
> In practical terms we make using OSM data one little step easier because they
> do not need to watch out for possible two or more keys and to risk t
On 05/12/19 00:41, Sören Reinecke via Tagging wrote:
This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
Both proposals are to depreciate one key in favour of another.
The general opinion looks to be .. no.
As you probably don't believe that .. go ahead and have your vote and
MARLIN LUKE wrote:
> Reading a thread like this honestly won't encourage any participation
> from outsiders (myself included)
With the best will in the world, I don't think it's productive or welcoming
to encourage outsiders to think that they should come into OSM and tell
everyone that 2 million
Hello all,I step back from my proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Discussions/tagging/contact:phone_or_phone_2 .CheersSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)From: Sören Reinecke via Tagging To: "Tag d
But we are not mapping the users of the lane, we are trying to map the
construction, not?
The construction is some paint on a surface that would be used by cars
if there was no paint.
Since the "construction" is the same for pedestrian lanes and cycle
lanes, I thought that having a similar tagging
sent from a phone
> On 5. Dec 2019, at 07:17, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> But we are not mapping the users of the lane, we are trying to map the
> construction, not?
> The construction is some paint on a surface that would be used by cars
> if there was no paint.
no, we are not just mapping the ph
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:06, Marc Gemis wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the
> > following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part
> > of a road/path) isn't a footway (separate path)
40 matches
Mail list logo
