[Tagging] reduction of the number of different keys talking about booking.com

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 18:45:20 UTC 2021

On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 18:26, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>

> There should be a distinction between contact information (which can
> include web sites and social media presences) controlled and provided by
> the business, versus outside references on 3rd party websites or databases.
> Contact info seems fine, but not a myriad of 3rd party sites.

Where do you stand on URLs that aren't contact info and are 3rd-party
but authoritative?  https://rcahmw.gov.uk/ provides details on monuments
and buildings that don't have heritage status.  I've mapped several bridges,
former religious buildings and the like for which this is the only source
of information about them.

The "OSM is not a gazetteer" crowd may say that this information is
superfluous but the "Is that bridge the one I think it is?" within me
appreciates a little extra detail about whether the bridge has one
span or two.

If we're going to set out rules for what is considered an appropriate
URL, we might need to consider matters a little more.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210131/0db1b46a/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list