Hello all, since the vote takes currently place, I want to use the time to comment on some reasons given by mappers who opposed my proposal. Normally I won't do that but my personal feel says that it's necessary here. I'm going to use e-mail style quoting for quoting.
> Without evidence that phone/contact:phone is intrinsically different > from other contact tags, discussing it on its own makes tagging less > orthogonal, which is bad both for mappers and users. In future we might have the discussion of deprecating the whole `contact` schema because that wouldn't interfere with the orthogonal approach which we by the way do not always follow. But if you think that creating wikipages for each tag in the `contact` schema when deprecating the whole `contact` schema would make tagging less orthogonal, I can please you. For this cases we can simply create a wikipage e.g. `contact` that lists all the tags which can be used to gather contacting data. But it wouldn't be necessary because each wikipage belongs to a category and a category can be used to get an overview of all the pages and therefore tags belonging to that category. We can also create a new category `contact` but in my opinion it wouldn't be necessary to do that. > I think that what the contact scheme offers is much more adaptable, > more orthogonal, and easier to understand than what would be approved by > this proposal. In understanding there shouldn't be any difference between using the `contact` schema or just the single `phone`. And more mappers are using the `phone` tag than `contact:phone` and other mappers use presets and do not care on tags at all. > I'm not convinced it is terrible to have both contact:phone and phone. > I'm not convinced that they are used entirely interchangeably and that > there are no subtle nuances. Even if I were convinced we had to > standardize on one, I'm not convinced that phone is preferable (or that > contact:phone is preferable). Better arguments would be required to > convince me both that we have to deprecate one of them and that > contact:phone is the one we should deprecate. To the first statement: Apparently you aren't a developer who wants to use/uses data from the OpenStreetMap project. We need to check, if `phone` and `contact:phone` are equal or not. That takes time. Time we could have spend on other (useful) things, if the OSM community had not done this. And if we detect that they are equal like in this case, we will need to develop a replacement function which we hate because normally you wouldn't do such crazy things like having two tags for the same purpose. To the second statement: But there are to 99,99% the same. Just the name is different. But I have a question: Did you find the "subtle nuances" you're assuming? Because I do not but now you have the chance to point me in the right direction, maybe I and others have overseen something? Please let us know! > violates single subject rule, phone number formatting etc. needs to be > discussed separately (not to mention that there is in general no need to > "deprecate" tags in OSM) What is the "single subject rule" you are talking about? Is there any resource mentioning that rule? Would really here that. But anyway I do not propose a new way of phone number formatting. But do you mean with `etc`? Why discussing seperately, they belonging to the specification?! Did we specify the syntax of `opening_hours` before actually specifying the key `opening_hours`? There is sometimes the need to deprecate tags in OSM e.g. when most people do not aggree with the specification or special cases like the deprecated key `diaper`. But again: I do not propose anything new. All I wrote or copied from other resources are already there in our wiki and used among mapping communities. > contact:* seems a useful way to group methods for data consumers Data consumers normally do not get to know the tags because that is to technical. The mainstream user wants it simple and tags aren't very user friendly. I think you're referring to data users who interpret the tags and therefore decide how data will be represented to the customers (e.g. maps.me users). > . The contact scheme is a useful namespace for collecting methods > through which a user might contact a business or other entity. "Phone" > is too general, and could be mistaken as a carrier for telephone- related > information other than the phone number itself. People who work with OSM data or creating/modifying it are likely to take a look on the wikipage before using so they use tags the right way. > There are too much different things for a single proposal. Changes to > the phone tagging schema and deprecation of the contact:phone tagging > schema should be separated. I love the contact tagging schema. I thinks > that there is no problem if both schemata coexist. To the first statement: I do not make changes to the specifications of the `phone` key. I just do a re-wording. To your last statement: Apparently you aren't a developer who wants to use/uses data from the OpenStreetMap project. E.g. we need to check, if `phone` and `contact:phone` are equal or not. That takes time. Time we could have spend on other (useful) things, if the OSM community had not done this. And if we detect that they are equal like in this case, we will need to develop a replacement function which we hate because normally you wouldn't do such crazy things like having two tags for the same purpose. -- Cheers ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram, Developer of the Babykarte - https://babykarte.github.io Participating in MapDiscover project - https://mapdiscover.org
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
