For example:
Researchers will wonder why are there not so many data for tag `contact:phone`. Researchers might not know that there are two ways of tagging phone numbers. So they don't get the most data because they don't notice the `phone` key which is used more widely. Do you really want that? There is no logical reason to have two tags for the same purpose.
Another thing: You speak about "similiar purpose" and I speak about "same purpose". This is a big difference.
~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)
From: Chris Hill
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
CC:
I disagree with this idea that we must remove similar tags for the sake
of it.
Anyone who actually uses OSM data (rather than people who just imagine
using it) know that there are many steps and choices to make to achieve
the end result. Often this involves combining data with various tags
that fit the requirements of the analysis, render, routing or whatever,
so combining data from similar tags is normal, not hard to do and once
done is repeatable over and over. It is not awful to have two tags for a
/similar/ purpose at all.
Removing seemingly similar tags and so homogenising the OSM database is
a very risky path to take. We risk removing subtlety and obscuring
mappers' real intent. The world we live in and try to represent with map
data is a muddled, mixed-up, jumble of human-made stuff that includes
many contradictions and minutely different things. One great strength of
OSM tagging is that mappers can find ways to represent this. If we march
down the homogenisation highway much of that strength will be lost.
I oppose deprecating contact:phone=*
--
cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)
On 28/09/2019 09:31, Valor Naram wrote:
> Hey,
>
> now I'm ready to open a new proposal which you can see here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone#Second_proposal_.28pending.29
> I use the old proposal page for that but seperated content into section
> to keep the history intact. The content is based on the discussion at
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/048339.html
> . It tends to deprecate `contact:phone` in favor of the more used de-
> facto `phone` tag. It's awful that we have two tags for the same
> puropose in our database and that makes it more difficult for
> developers and researchers to work with our data.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
