[Tagging] URL tracking parameters

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:40 PM Victor/tuxayo <victor at tuxayo.net> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Thanks. I did think that statement would apply here, but it just didn't
have as strong of a wording. I do wonder if some contributors don't realise
that these parameters are not necessary to function, and that they should
actually remove them.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:22 PM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Ok ok you're right.
>
> The URL does contain a tracking token but it does not exclusively track
> OSM usage.
>
> I have overreacted because I have in the past dealt with advertisers who
> had added an OSM-specific "campaign" ID the the links which was clearly
> out of line, and suspected the same here.
>

I had used this Hilton one as an example because it just happened and the
tracking parameters were so widespread, I too hadn't noticed their own web
site adds those. There are also a lot of *utm_source=ig_profile_share* ones
which individual contributors have probably added without realising wasn't
part of the website URL.

There are however ones which would have been done intentionally,
*utm_source=OpenStreetMap* and *utm_source=mapsme*.

-- 
Jono
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200225/39a4aa13/attachment.htm>