I see the need to link to a place's Facebook page in the case where the place has a Facebook page that they maintain but do not have their own website. (If I'm a small-time business owner, it's actually much easier to put up a Facebook page for my business and use that to interact with my customers than if I create my own website.)
However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. is the way to go. OSM is not a link directory so adding many such links on the OSM database doesn't seem appropriate. One or two is maybe OK. That said, you have hit on a good idea of putting up such an OpenWebYellowPages service separate from OSM. You search for a place in OpenWebYellowPages and you get links to the place's page on Facebook, foursquare, Yelp, etc. And you should also get a link to OSM which stores the data on the actual physical location of that place. On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Alexander <a...@fissl.com> wrote: > Hi there! > > I am trying to establish a standard for external links to various platforms > (including but not only facbook, qype, foursquare etc.) while facebook and > qype are widely known, there are thousands of smaller or regional services > which provide... > > * ...the ability to write and read reviews about a place > * ...the ability to 'check in' at a certain place > * ...the ability to publish events pointing at a certain place > * ...further information (like contact data, opening hours etc.) about a > place > > Also lots of location operators don't even have their own website. It > becomes more and more common only to have a 'place' at facebook. So using > the website=* tag would be incorrect. > > Linking to third party services can come in handy... > > * ...for users to check-in/review/whatever > * ...for service providers to get more visits > * ...for developers for whatever they come up next > * ...for mappers to verify existing tags about the place > > I observed multiple patterns how people tried to add these information as > tags to osm. Here are some examples: > > url:[service_name] > url:facebook > url:myspace > social_network:[service_name] > social_network:facebook > social_network:twitter > social_network:youtube > social_network:myspace > social_network:flickr > link:[service_name] > link:facebook > link:qype > link:twitter > web:[service_name] > web:facebook > web:twitter > [service_name] > foursquare > facebook > google+ > myspace > website:[service_name] > website:qype > ref:[service_name] > ref:qype > > The most popular service appear to be (sorted by frequency): > > 1. Facebook > 2. Foursquare > 3. qype > 4. myspace > > I wouldn't like to limit the tagging to these dominating platforms. New > players should be threaten equally. Maybe this could encourage future > services to use (and contribute to) the OSM. > > And as we have no idea what the upcoming services will be called I recommend > to prefix them with something like: > > url:[service_name] > web:[service_name] > link:[service_name] > website:[service_name] > > I don't recommend social_network:[service_name] because not all of these > services are actually social networks. > > Using a prefix gives us the following advantages: > > 1. In case of namespace collisions > For example lets imagine in 10 years another location based service > gets popular which is called "amenity.com". How to name the key for > links in this case as amenity=* is already occupied by are more > important meaning. > 2. Editors and developers will know what the prefixed tag stands for > even if they don't know the particular service. Imagine you find > something like asdf=*. how can you know that there is a service > out there called asdf.eu? > > I tried this on this node which is a bar with a link-prefix: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/905883257 > > Well what do you think? > > Cheers, > Alexander _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
