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

[Philip Barnes]

On 11/05/2020 10:29, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
> On 5/10/20 7:36 PM, Cj Malone wrote:
>> 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.
> Why should we split these out?
>
> In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on
> phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something 
> useful?

This is OSM, people can map anything that is verifiable.

I do map phone numbers of phoneboxes and can see various uses for this 
data.

The number of the phonebox in the village where my grandmother lived is 
still ingrained on my memory, we used to phone her at the phonebox at 
the same time every Sunday, being able to find out the number to call 
someone without visiting first is useful.

Taxi firms could find this useful to locate a customer who is unsure of 
their location.

I used to let my parents know I was ready to be picked up by letting the 
phone at home ring twice, I had to be at a specific place for that to 
work. But being able to look up the location of the phonebox would have 
meant I could be at any phonebox.

I am sure others will see other applications.

Phil (trigpoint)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200512/d0321973/attachment.htm>