[Tagging] reduction of the number of different keys talking about booking.com
Brian M. Sperlongano
zelonewolf at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 23:44:19 UTC 2021
Yes, I think that kind of thing is fine. In my mind, the government
website for a public location is exactly analogous to a website put up by a
However, if there are 4 ratings websites, 6 blog entries, and an online
magazine article about some location, I do not think that sort of thing
belongs in OSM. If it were allowed, it would be an invitation to those
sorts of websites to spam the database with links to their service.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 1:47 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging