<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">sent from a phone</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On 13. May 2019, at 18:06, Jmapb <<a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com">jmapb@gmx.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>I'm reluctant to recommend the OSM database as the best place to
collect links to the individual restaurant pages of various
delivery services. I prefer this "delivery:partner=*"
recommendation on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:delivery">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:delivery</a> . The value
could be semicoloned, eg
delivery:partner=deliveroo;menulog;ubereats.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>+1<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p>And if delivery:*=* is adopted, I'd recommend to start with
delivery:*=yes and make the url optional. </p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>+1<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>One weakness of both of these schemes is that there's no obvious
way to indicate that the restaurant also does deliveries itself --
which many of them do, and prefer to do, since they don't have to
give a cut to a dot-com middle man.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Right, maybe we should introduce a code for this to be added along the delivery partners, something like “self”? (naturally this would break if a company called self would offer delivery services).</div><div>Maybe the delivery:partner tag should be called delivery:operator (self would fit better)?</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p>On principal I'm not a fan of giving airtime to these delivery
services because of their predatory behavior </p></div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div>yes, just because we agreed on a tagging scheme doesn’t imply we have to add these tags ;-)</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p><font color="#000000"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">...</span></font>s are used I would strongly recommend that
they be based only on physically (or photographically) verifiable
signage, not just on the fact that a restaurant can be found in
the online database of a given service -- </p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div>I’ve hardly seen signage (yet), but some restaurants have flyers and advertising on the bill.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>which might be entirely
involuntary, and therefore not, in fact, a verifiable property of
the restaurant itself.</p></div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div><div>verifiable facts about a restaurant <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">(or other feature) </span>might not always be verifiable in the feature itself, but still be verifiable for everybody interested in it (elsewhere). If the URL is accessible for everybody it would satisfy the verifiability requirement, wouldn’t it?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers, Martin </div></body></html>