[Tagging] URL tracking parameters

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 25.02.20 11:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> But more broadly, we value data for its correctness

True. (There's a few other things we value too, but correctness
definitely is nice.)

> You are inventing a suspected rationale ("an
> advertising campaign")

Tracking components in an URL are usually a sign for an advertising
campaign. (They are often even called "campaign_ref=...".) If this is
*not* and advertising campaign but they give the outward appearance of
being one, is it then really me who is "suspecting" and "inventing"?

> on the part of the contributor; judging them by your
> own standards which aren't the agreed/stated values of OSM anywhere I can
> see

I don't follow. You said above that correctness is valued. The fact that
advertising and correctness do not usually go hand in hand certainly
needs no discussion. When I then say that we cannot trust data added as
part of an advertising campaign - is that "judging by my own standards"?

> I mean, isn't it also possible that, now we've all made such an outstanding
> success of OSM and it's used in approximately eight gazillion mapping apps,
> Hilton Hotels think it would be useful if their customers could use their
> favourite mapping app to find a hotel they're staying in?

Sure, I'm happy to compromise on "let's remove just those tags that do
not contribute to finding the hotel someone is staying in".

> Anyway, brb, got to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/312915889 from
> the map.

Clearly added in an advertising campaign. The business owner hoped to
attract more business by creating that node 11 years ago with
"addr:housenumber=17".

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"