On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 02:48, Cj Malone <cjmal...@mail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > And yet you, and others, keep saying it. "Deprecate" means "express > > disapproval of." In the context of OSM, it means "phase out." That > > is, > > eradicate with the passage of time. It may not be what you mean, but > > it's what you keep saying. > > Any yet what I described was a phase out with 3 steps. >
"Phase out": "to discontinue the practice, production, or use of by phases. intransitive verb. : to stop production or operation by phases." So you explicitly state that you do not wish to get rid of the phone tag yet continue to find different ways of implicilty saying that you wish to get rid of the phone tag. Is English not your first language? I thought this mailing list was the official avenue for disusing, > changing and adding tags in OSM. I didn't realise you had to get the > editor permission. > Unless you get editor buy-in then your shiny new tag won't get used by many people because it's not offered as an editor preset. Because it doesn't get used much, authors of editors will say they're not including it as a preset because it's not popular. You may not like that. I certainly don't like that. But it's how it is. > > > Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except > > we don't like automated edits. But without cleaning it up, you make > > database queries more complex. > > I don't have any arguments against automated edits, bulk edits, machine > assisted edits. In any dataset they are needed, especially one this > massive. But it's not a fight I have the effort to fight right now. > Very wise. Because you have to have very, very strong justification for automated edits in OSM. The most fundamental precondition is that ALL a=b change to x=y. And even if you satisfy that precondition, it probably won't be permitted. And we already know you don't satisfy that precondition because the phone number for a phone box is not a contact phone number and various websites are not contact pages. > > > I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone > > number. > > If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number. > > If > > I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for > > the business. What extra utility does having contact:phone provide? > > And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags > > to > > fix? > > That's just one edge case with the phone tag. Another one being phone > on parking. Is that the number you call to pay, or is it the number you > call to contact the operator because there is something wrong. > So it's a phone number you call if you want to talk to somebody a POI. That's an edge case how? > > I believe there are more edge cases we still aren't thinking of, and if > we aren't the user agents defiantly aren't. > I don't think you've found any edge cases yet. I don't think there are any edge cases unless you can find one where a contact phone number isn't a phone number. Amusingly, the more arguments you put forward the more convinced I am that contact:* is a horrible idea without merit. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
