[Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England

Thu Aug 22 15:37:12 UTC 2013

What renderers do on the way out, data entry applications do the reverse
on the way in. I.e. when mappers enter data according to their locale
and customs, the data entered must be transformed to the generic
representation. If this fails due to unintelligible input, the mapper
gets the feedback straight away. 

What has been discussed in this thread confirms that different people
have a different view of "correctness" of the various ways of
representing phone numbers, so most people are going to have to learn a
new trick anyway. Or is this discussion just a waste of time because
there are only a handful of participants and the thousands of UK mappers
won't change know about the new "consensus" and will carry on as they
see fit anyway? 

Someone needs to stick up for the data consumers; it's not *all* about
the mappers, and anyway most mappers are not so lazy that they can't be
bothered to conform to conventions. 

Colin 

On 2013-08-22 17:02, sk53.osm wrote: 

> OSM data are stored in a database, but the data is entered freehand by mappers: canonical forms (whatever they maybe) are unlikely to be the sort of thing an ordinary mapper is likely to care about very much, and usually they can be generated by post-processing.
> 
> I have no objections to DBs outwith the OSM API DB holding data in such formats but putting the burden on mappers is not the way forward. Phone numbers are pretty peripheral for the primary OSM mission of collecting geodata, so I dont think deserve too much worrying about.
> 
> Jerry 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 
> It would be better to separate content from presentation. The database should contain data in a generic, canonical format; it's the job of the presentation layer to format that up as required. The key thing is that a data consumer needs to be able to interpret the data unambiguously. I would suggest OSM should only contain phone numbers in E.164 international format. Then "renderers" (in the broadest possible sense) can do whatever they are programmed to do, without being constrained by the data. That's what we often do with dates (YYYY-MM-DD) and it is why databases have a DATE data type (or one of the many variations like DATETIME or TIMESTAMP). Why not apply the same principle to phone numbers? 
> 
> Colin 
> 
> On 2013-08-22 14:35, sk53.osm wrote: 
> 
> IIRC virtually every round of phone number expansion has not been very forward looking. I think Ovum did the consultancy on the first one [1]: just adding a '1' on the front of each STD code, which was obviously a kludge. I vaguely remember the London 01 => 071,081 not long happened before that.
> 
> I do remember discussions about the changes around the late '80s and being disappointed that the outcome was obviously only going to work for a while.
> 
> Back on topic. 
> 
> I agree that storing phone numbers in OSM has dubious value, largely on maintenance grounds, but as in general they are no harder to collect than other items of data, don't see it as a significant problem. Websites must be just as likely to change, but I see these as a good way for other mappers to quickly verify stuff.
> 
> I do strongly prefer use of international syntax and spaces between the STD code (area codes are an North American thing) and just before the last 3 (6-digit numbers) or 4 digits (7 & 8 digit numbers - exchange codes are presumably a legacy of the past). My preference for spaces is entirely down to making them more readable when entering the number and checking existing tags, i.e., it makes things easier for mappers. 
> 
> As an aside I find the continental system of chunking phone numbers into pairs as in seventy-nine, forty-six, O-six, seventy-six for 7946 0676, a more effective way of dealing (remembering, cross-checking etc) the longer numbers we have these days.
> 
> Jerry 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> Bournemouth (01202)[1] and before long Brighton and Hove (01273), Aberdeen (01224), Milton Keynes (01908), Bradford (01274) and Cambridge (01223) which are all running short of numbers[2], require or will require the 'area code' to be dialled as part of the number, even if you are inside the area (so that they can use numbers within the area starting zero so giving another 100,000 numbers).
> 
> So the area code is becoming meaningless as a separate thing anyway in the UK.
> 
> (I don't know why they couldn't just have more than one area code serve the same place for new numbers, e.g. have 02223 as well as 01223 for Cambridge which would be upward compatible, but presumably there's some technical difficulty doing that).
> 
> David
> 
> [1] http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/dial-the-code/ [2]
> [2] http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/09/plans-to-safeguard-the-supply-of-uk-telephone-numbers/ [3] 
> 
> On 22/08/2013 11:42, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> 
> So to dial Portsmouth from Southampton you need only do 92xxxxxx ? Not
> tried it.
> 
> Really, to make 023 a "Solent" area code though in any meaningful sense,
> you need Fareham, Gosport, Hedge End, Whiteley etc to all be in the 023
> area.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -----Andy Street <mail at andystreet.me.uk> wrote: -----
> To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
> From: Andy Street <mail at andystreet.me.uk>
> Date: 22/08/2013 11:10AM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Phone numbers in little England
> 
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:31:49 +0100
> Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> 
>> On 22/08/13 09:01, Lester Caine wrote:
>>
>> > Personally I still think of 0207 as Inner London and 0208 as Outer
>> > London, but moving the 7/8 as part of the exchange sort of makes
>> > sense these days.
>>
>> Well you think incorrectly then, as that has not been the case for
>> some time, either in theory or in practice. On top of which 0203 is
>> now in use as well...
> 
> I don't think the UK population has really cottoned on to the idea of
> three digit area codes. We have a similar situation here on the South
> Coast where some people think the area code is 02380 for Southampton and
> 02392 for Portsmouth when it is actually 023 for the whole area. I do
> sometimes wonder whether it is a simple misunderstanding or the old
> local rivalry and not wanting to get lumped in with "that lot at the
> other end of the M27"! ;)
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Andy Street
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [4]

Links:
------
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhONEday
[2] http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/dial-the-code/
[3]
http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/2011/09/plans-to-safeguard-the-supply-of-uk-telephone-numbers/
[4] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130822/80e5fa32/attachment-0001.html>