<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 01:38, Cj Malone <<a href="mailto:CjMalone@mail.com">CjMalone@mail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:<br>> > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.<br>
><br>
> And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.<br>
<br>
I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not<br>
arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And yet you, and others, keep saying it. "Deprecate" means "express <br></div><div>disapproval of." In the context of OSM, it means "phase out." That is,</div><div>eradicate with the passage of time. It may not be what you mean, but</div><div>it's what you keep saying.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming<br>
number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with<br>
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where<br>
totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and<br>
phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the<br>
definitions that really matter.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Replacing tags isn't easy. There is inertia from various parties involved.</div><div>Carto has a rule of "no aliases." Which means that however compelling</div><div>you feel that replacing a=b with x=y is a good idea, they'll almost certainly</div><div> reject it because "no aliases." The editor people have their own foibles, too,</div><div>but they're more likely to decide they don't like a=b or x=y and go with</div><div>p=q.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except</div><div>we don't like automated edits. But without cleaning it up, you make</div><div>database queries more complex.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and<br>
phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused<br>
as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets<br>
gradually move people away from this.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone number.</div><div>If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number. If</div><div>I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for</div><div>the business. What extra utility does having contact:phone provide?</div><div>And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags to</div><div>fix?<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
- We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the<br>
Wiki.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't see any useful difference. It's a phone number. I dial it and the</div><div>phone on the other end rings. Why would I expect a business to have</div><div> a phone number they never answer?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
- Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a<br>
contact number, or another form of number.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What difference does it make? I can understand wanting to distinguish</div><div>fax numbers from numbers that people answer. That doesn't</div><div>require contact:phone=* for the voice number, just fax=* for the</div><div>fax number.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
- And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use<br>
of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>First you have to convince them that this is a good idea in the first place.</div><div>And you'll have to convince some people on the list that having a "more</div><div>quantified" tag is a good thing.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website<br>
and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding<br>
contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just<br>
have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so<br>
doesn't belong in contact:website.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm far from convinced that contact:website is useful. It's certainly</div><div>semantically wrong. It's a contact;webpage not a contact:website</div><div>(there are maybe a handful of exceptions to that). Why do you think</div><div>the user is more likely to require the webpage giving contact details</div><div>rather than the home page of the web site? I'd expect users are</div><div>more likely to want more information on what a POI is than to</div><div>want to find out how to contact it.</div><div><br></div><div>I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived. But fine, if</div><div>you want it then use it. Just please stop suggesting that we</div><div>deprecate website=* and phone=*.</div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>