On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:55, Cj Malone <cjmal...@mail.com> wrote: > > I agree, not all phone tags convert to contact:phone, same with the > others. I don't think anybody is talking about a mass edit of the > database. >
But that's what they often imply. Perhaps with carelessly-worded statements, like the one you're about to make... > > I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like > contact:phone when it's a contact number. We can do that through the > wiki, and defaults in the editors, I'm OK with that. and gradually deprecating the generic tags. > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*. I hope that was merely careless working. > During the transition to more quantified data we will see edge cases > like public phone boxes, and others we don't yet know about, and we > should discus new tags for them. > New tags? Why? We have existing tags that work fine for them. It's starting to sound like you're encouraging mass editing. More careless wording? Those working on editors and cartos may feel that contact:phone=* is an alias of phone=* and insist we can have one or the other but not both. If that happens then we have to stick with phone=* because that applies to all phones whereas contact:phone=* does not. The same with website=* and contact:website=*. I'm not saying that either of those groups will insist it's one or the other, merely that it seems possible to me. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
