[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

bkil bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Wed Dec 26 18:05:39 UTC 2018

Please don't confuse top ups with refilling:

I think "top up" is standard terminology in the UK for increasing the
balance of prepaid mobile phone accounts.

The author has since updated the wiki page for the proposal, so now it

top_up:phone=yes;no -> This shop sells telephone recharge vouchers or
over-the-air credit top-up
top_up:transport=yes;no -> This shop sells public transport card top-up
top_up:credit_card=yes;no -> This shop sells credit card top up

This is not the same wording as discussed above, but I still like this one.

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 2:11 PM Tom Pfeifer <t.pfeifer at computer.org> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181226/41e8c739/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list