On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:40 PM Victor/tuxayo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 20-02-25 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > > Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*, > > fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website > > It's implied in the following best practice: > > > Use as short a URL as possible. Choose simple URLs over complex URLs if > they basically point to the same content. For example, use > https://bahn.de/ instead of https://www.bahn.de/p/view/index.shtml, as > both will get you to the front page. Websites are frequently redesigned, so > strive for the most "robust" URL that works. > Thanks. I did think that statement would apply here, but it just didn't have as strong of a wording. I do wonder if some contributors don't realise that these parameters are not necessary to function, and that they should actually remove them. On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:22 PM Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok ok you're right. > > The URL does contain a tracking token but it does not exclusively track > OSM usage. > > I have overreacted because I have in the past dealt with advertisers who > had added an OSM-specific "campaign" ID the the links which was clearly > out of line, and suspected the same here. > I had used this Hilton one as an example because it just happened and the tracking parameters were so widespread, I too hadn't noticed their own web site adds those. There are also a lot of *utm_source=ig_profile_share* ones which individual contributors have probably added without realising wasn't part of the website URL. There are however ones which would have been done intentionally, *utm_source=OpenStreetMap* and *utm_source=mapsme*. -- Jono
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
