[Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

[s8evq]

+1
I find you wrote down very sound and logical arguments. 
Splitting phone into "a way of contacting a business" and "a telephone number of a phonebooth" sounds logic.

Counterargument is that you can figure this out by the fact that phone=* + shop=* means it's a business number. phone+amenity=telephone means it's a phonebox' number. So there can not be confusion.

How is the general OSM consensus on this. Do we have a lot of keys with double meaning, where you need to look at the which keys are also on the object to figure out the true meaning?

On Mon, 11 May 2020 01:36:51 +0100, Cj Malone <CjMalone at mail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> > But that's what they often imply.
> 
> I don't know if this is worth saying or not, but this isn't a war,
> there aren't sides. We all just want OSM to be the best it can be.
> 
> I am fairly new to OSM, especially the mailing lists but I guess you
> are coming from a point of view like "They are coming for the phone tag
> again". I'm not, I wasn't part of any previous discussions on the phone
> tag or contact namespace. I just want to help improve OSM, any way that
> I can.
> 
> If you are a little annoyed because you've had this discussion multiple
> times that just means it's a hot topic for people and discussions will
> help everyone understand all the other opinions.
> 
> > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags.
> >
> > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*.
> 
> I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not
> arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag.
> Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming
> number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where
> totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and
> phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the
> definitions that really matter.
> 
> As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and
> phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused
> as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets
> gradually move people away from this.
> 
> - We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the
> Wiki.
> - Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a
> contact number, or another form of number.
> - And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use
> of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag.
> 
> The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website
> and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding
> contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just
> have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so
> doesn't belong in contact:website.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging