[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

Tom Pfeifer t.pfeifer at computer.org
Wed Dec 26 13:10:32 UTC 2018


I find "top_up" alone highly misleading and unspecific.

I encountered the term in filling stations, where you would order either "5 gallons" or "top up", 
i.e. to fully fill the tank. Or when pre-paying the fuel, you would either pay "fuel for $20", or 
leave your credit card with the cashier to allow "top up".

In the same sense, you could ask the bar keeper to "top up" your cocktail glass.

In the context of pre-paying credits for phone or transport, there is no such "top", no upper limit, 
you could buy any amount you want. Thus this marketing slang is misleading.

It is unspecific to be used in OSM since it does not indicate which service is being paid for.
Using it on the object tagged with amenity=bar it gets absolutely confusing what is getting topped up.

Thus, I'd not use the term "top_up" at all, and as Martin proposed, indicate the type of service 
first, e.g.:
phone_credits=yes
transport_credits=yes
cocktail_glasses_topped_up=yes

Even 'credits' seem problematic, since what you pre-pay is not a credit.
tom


On 25.12.2018 21:03, Daniele Santini wrote:> Hi, I propose to introduce the top_up=* key to specify 
whether a shop/amenity sells top-ups (mobile
 > phone credit recharge vouchers,  over-the-air credit top up and/or public transport credit recharge
 > vouchers).

On 26.12.2018 12:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> +1, I was proposing on talk-it a very similar
> phone_top_up=yes/no
> phone_top_up:<brand>=yes/ no
> 
> but given that top_up=yes already has some uses (mainly for public transport it seems), a more general scheme top_up:phone:<brand> could be more obvious to data users and more consistent with the current data, so +1 to this.



More information about the Tagging mailing list