[Tagging] URL tracking parameters

[Victor/tuxayo]

On 20-02-25 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
 > Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*,
 > fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website

It's implied in the following best practice:

> Use as short a URL as possible. Choose simple URLs over complex URLs if they basically point to the same content. For example, use https://bahn.de/ instead of https://www.bahn.de/p/view/index.shtml, as both will get you to the front page. Websites are frequently redesigned, so strive for the most "robust" URL that works.

----

On 20-02-25 08:51, Jez Nicholson wrote:
 > Whilst I'm firmly against tracking codes, we could give the benefit of
 > the doubt and assume that they just cut-and-paste the URL and did not
 > intend to place tracking.


I don't know where they get their URLs from but I just searched from 
their website a hotel and nothing is added automatically.

Asking for clarification would remove part of the doubt.

----

On 20-02-25 11:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
 > Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either 
made by a single user, or the account is being shared between multiple 
users.
 >
 > Should edits not be attributable to an individual?

I don't remember seeing something like that. I could be wrong though.

Nothing here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_editing_best_practice

But it's good for us if it's not a too high traffic account, on account 
helps to keep track on what their are doing.

----

On 20-02-25 11:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of an
> advertising campaign, because that means the information is not
> trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to provide
> unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the vehicle for an
> advertising campaign.

I also get the feeling that these things are not done as genuine 
contributions to OSM in an intent to improve the database.
But we can trust them on the position of the hotel right? So at least 
this can stay in OSM.

----

On 20-02-25 11:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
 > But more broadly, we value data for its correctness, not for its 
provenance
 > (assuming licence-compatible).

+1

----


On 20-02-25 11:34, Philip Barnes wrote:
 > I have commented on a recent edit near me asking both questions and 
pointing out the url they should use.

Thanks a lot, can you post the changeset for the record? So we can check 
later if they responded if this goes out of your radar.


Cheers,

-- 
Victor/tuxayo