I find "top_up" alone highly misleading and unspecific.
I encountered the term in filling stations, where you would order either "5 gallons" or "top up",
i.e. to fully fill the tank. Or when pre-paying the fuel, you would either pay "fuel for $20", or
leave your credit card with the cashier to allow "top up".
In the same sense, you could ask the bar keeper to "top up" your cocktail glass.
In the context of pre-paying credits for phone or transport, there is no such "top", no upper limit,
you could buy any amount you want. Thus this marketing slang is misleading.
It is unspecific to be used in OSM since it does not indicate which service is
being paid for.
Using it on the object tagged with amenity=bar it gets absolutely confusing
what is getting topped up.
Thus, I'd not use the term "top_up" at all, and as Martin proposed, indicate the type of service
first, e.g.:
phone_credits=yes
transport_credits=yes
cocktail_glasses_topped_up=yes
Even 'credits' seem problematic, since what you pre-pay is not a credit.
tom
On 25.12.2018 21:03, Daniele Santini wrote:> Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify
whether a shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile
> phone credit recharge vouchers, over-the-air credit top up and/or public
transport credit recharge
> vouchers).
On 26.12.2018 12:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
+1, I was proposing on talk-it a very similar
phone_top_up=yes/no
phone_top_up:<brand>=yes/ no
but given that top_up=yes already has some uses (mainly for public transport it
seems), a more general scheme top_up:phone:<brand> could be more obvious to
data users and more consistent with the current data, so +1 to this.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
