[Tagging] webpage=*

Sören Reinecke valinora at gmx.net
Sat Mar 20 20:11:58 UTC 2021


Luckily for you that you're not a data consumer because otherwise you
would want the OSM community to actually listen to us which they don't
do at all sadly :(

We have two options:
1. If we find a way to distinguish between url=*, website=*, webpage=*
which is also reasonable understandable to newbies, then it can be an
improvement. But as I followed the discussion here I doubt that we find
a good definition for each of them.
2. We deprecate url, website, webpage in favor of website or url or
webpage and do an automatic edit to change all occurrences of the
deprecated ones to the approved one. But we don't touch all the tags for
the social media websites because they are special websites and handled
differently by most applications.

On 20.03.21 20:46, Peter Elderson wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210320/0284fabc/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list