[Tagging] webpage=*

[Peter Elderson]

website, url and webpage are all valid keys, anyone can use them even if no
one else does. Anyone who thinks uri is a better key for uri's is also
right and can use it. Systematically removing or replacing them is wrong
and should lead to a ban.

As for unifying this, I think it's not worth the hassle. I for one have
seen valid arguments for all these keys, and even missed a few for allowing
multiple keys so multiple purposes can be served. I use that e.g. for route
relations, where the website key references an information website about
e.g. all the routes maintained by an operator, and the url references the
page or sub-site of the route.
Same with stolpersteine: website references a site for a (sub)collection,
url gives the page or subpage for one stolperstein. I have had cases where
I could use a webpage key in addition.

It's up to the data consumers to decide what to support for particular use
cases. If I were a data user, I would support them all.

Peter Elderson


Op do 18 mrt. 2021 om 13:33 schreef Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:

> Hi
>
> Some time ago, as a side-issue to something else, I
> mentioned that I preferred using url=*  to website=* when
> the item was a single, standalone page in a much larger website.
> Somebody (I forget who) suggested using webpage=* instead.  So
> I recently did.
>
> I added a holiday cottage and used webpage=* for the single
> page on a website dealing with many holiday cottages.  A couple
> of hours later I received a changeset comment telling me not to
> use non-standard keys and which changed webpage=* to
> website=*.
>
> I wondered if the person had happened across the newly-added
> holiday cottage by accident or was using some sort of tool to
> catch things like this.  So I didn't respond, merely changed
> it back, noting that I had deliberately chosen that key, please
> don't revert, and "any key you like."  That way I'd know if
> the person was using a tool to catch these things or not.
> Sure enough, that user changed it back to website.
>
> I checked the wiki: nothing for webpage=*.  Which does indeed
> make it non-standard.  But if it showed up in taginfo I could add
> a page with status "in use" or "de facto" (if I can figure out the
> difference between them).  It did show up in taginfo.  1 use
> (probably mine).  But a chronology showing it once had a
> far higher use which ramped up over time and then dropped
> off a cliff.  Then later showed some small usage that then
> dropped off a cliff.  That has zero usage today.  Unless
> somebody knows how to get at the details, as far as
> taginfo is concerned it never existed.
>
> Then I checked that user's edit history.  Quite a lot of
> changesets are about "fixing" things.  He or she fixed
> wbsite=* in one edit (for which he or she deserves thanks).
> But he or she also waged war upon webpage.
>
> So a few questions:
>
> 1) Does what this user is doing constitute good practise or not?
> He or she is not fixing errors that he or she finds when editing
> objects but is using a tool to wage war on tags he or she
> considers non-standard.  Before you answer this, remember
> "any tag you like."  You might one day roll out limited usage
> of a tag you just invented to get a feel for how it works, only
> to find it has been replaced a few hours later because it is
> non-standard.
>
> 2) Is there sufficient excuse to document webpage=* as
> "in use" (with suggestion to consider using website=*
> where appropriate) given that it was, prior to war being
> waged upon it, actually in use?  Or is it so controversial
> it would need a proposal and vote?  If so, I'll probably go
> back to using url=*.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210320/d8bcd581/attachment.htm>