On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:00, Cj Malone <cjmal...@mail.com> wrote: > > But not all of them are necessarily contacts. I've added URLs for > > historic buildings that give more information about the > > building. There is nobody to talk to about it. I've added websites > > for companies; there is a contact page on that website but the URL > > I've given is for the company website as a whole. > > Surely that's an argument for new tags as well as contact:website, for > example description:website where a user agent could give users a "Read > more" link. A website tag is generic, which has the obvious benefit of > used widely and easily, but more precise tags like contact:website give > user agents much more flexibility. > > It was an argument against replacing website=* with contact:website=* as some seemed to be proposing. If you wish to propose more *:website=* tags that is fine b me (I can use any I find useful and ignore the rest).
We can't replace phone with contact:phone in all cases, as some wish to do, because of phone boxes. We can't replace website with contact:website in all cases, as some wish to do, because there are a lot of POIs with websites or URLs that are not contacts. As long as this is understood, I don't have a problem with contact:phone and contact:website. If, however, people insist on replacing phone and website completely, then I will not be happy. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
