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

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 11.05.2020 03:10, Paul Allen wrote:
> I'm far from convinced that contact:website is useful.  It's certainly
> semantically wrong.  It's a contact;webpage not a contact:website
> (there are maybe a handful of exceptions to that).  Why do you think
> the user is more likely to require the webpage giving contact details
> rather than the home page of the web site?  I'd expect users are
> more likely to want more information on what a POI is than to
> want to find out how to contact it.
> 
> I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived.  But fine, if
> you want it then use it.  Just please stop suggesting that we
> deprecate website=* and phone=*.

Indeed the main reason why my preference is not to use the contact:* scheme
is that its proponents did not limit the scheme to true means of contacting,
but tried to press everything into it that was not up in the trees when counting
to three.

The most prominent example is website, where only a page with a message form would
be clearly in this category. However what is more recommended to be mapped is the
basic homepage of a POI, because it is least likely to be changed in website relaunches.

The main purpose for me to read a website is to gain information about the object
and not to contact it.

In countries where an imprint is not mandatory, websites often do not even provide contact
details at all.

There are many more examples on the contact:* wiki page that are pure methods of dissemination
and not of contact, such as contact:youtube or even contact:flickr

How is contact:webcam supposed to fit into the scheme?

In contrast, postal addresses are a very typical means of contact, I can send a letter
there. So consequently, we would have to to move the "addr:*" scheme into "contact:addr:*",
which would make the scheme even more stilted.

I guess that contact:[phone|fax|email], and nothing more, could have won easily if the
scheme had not tried to include all the other stuff.

tom