[Tagging] consider website=www.openstreetmap.org to be OK

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:08 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 at 12:57, Alan Mackie <aamackie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you have examples of this signage? I've seen plenty of shops that
>>> don't specify protocol in what they advertise as their website.
>>>
>>> This is the number 1 reason I don't think mappers should be forced to
>> pick a protocol. Map what's on the sign.
>>
>
> As in this one which I saw yesterday: https://m4a1gelblaster.com/ (Middle
> of the 3 gallery photos if it doesn't come through)
>
> Their signage drops the https://, & even www. for just m4a1gelblaster.com
>

This is why I think you should map what it ultimately leads you to.  You're
not going to get far all trying to connect to that via secondlife:// or
gopher:// after all.  Unlike what a lot of browsers are pushing now,
specificity is not a bad thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210130/4aeec505/attachment.htm>