date:20200225


On 26/2/20 9:57 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


But I have seen a few places on the map where a street motor
race is held once a year, but they are mapped as a motor
racing track, with a description "whatever race held the first
weekend of October".

Is it rarely used race track or is it normal road/field used once
a year for racing?

First should be taggable, in the second case I would probably
delete it.


The cases I'm thinking of are normal city streets ~11 months of the 
year, which for 1 month are then closed off, fenced, painted etc for 
Formula 1 & similar high-level street-racing events, which will 
actually only last for ~4 days!



There is also the solar car 'race' from Darwin to Adelaide. Uses the 
normal road and is open to the public while the 'race' is on. Most of 
the 'track' is fixed as there is only really one road to use. There can 
be variations from year to year where there are alternatives but the 
vast majority of the 'circuit' is set in place.



The more I think about it an 'event' key looks to be a solution for 
those that want to map such things. Of course renders can chose what to 
do with such things as is their right, but mappers have a right to enter 
data? The data is verifiable, well known locally and significant at 
least locally and in some cases internationally.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-25 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> But I have seen a few places on the map where a street motor race is held
> once a year, but they are mapped as a motor racing track, with a
> description "whatever race held the first weekend of October".
>
> Is it rarely used race track or is it normal road/field used once a year
> for racing?
>
> First should be taggable, in the second case I would probably delete it.
>

The cases I'm thinking of are normal city streets ~11 months of the year,
which for 1 month are then closed off, fenced, painted etc for Formula 1 &
similar high-level street-racing events, which will actually only last for
~4 days!

  Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows


On 26/2/20 9:35 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:




Feb 25, 2020, 23:16 by graemefi...@gmail.com:





On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 16:56, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

generally, I thought that was agreed, we do not map events,
but we do map places where events take (regularly) place.


But I have seen a few places on the map where a street motor race
is held once a year, but they are mapped as a motor racing track,
with a description "whatever race held the first weekend of October".

Should they then be deleted?


Is it rarely used race track or is it normal road/field used once a 
year for racing?


First should be taggable, in the second case I would probably delete it.



For Bathurst:

It was a 'normal road' some decades ago. Since then it has been 
'upgraded' with hi traction surfacing, armco, runoff areas, chicanes 
etc. When not being used as a race track it is open to the public for 
normal use (the cops patrol it to catch those that try to race on it).


It is readily recognized as a race track. As such I would tag it 
highway=track access=permissive, surface=paved and what ever the speed 
limit is.


More than one event (groups of races) occurs on it every year. And there 
lies the problem ... tagging the regularly held events.



https://www.mount-panorama.com.au/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathurst_1000

https://www.bathurst12hour.com.au/


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows


On 26/2/20 1:35 am, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

These shows do take place at a permanent site.

They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted.

The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the same 
time each year.

They are part of Australian culture, and it would seem British culture.

I also wish for a settled tag for a regular, locally important event
that is repeatedly or always held at a given site.

I have tagged location of one such in Canada with landuse=fairground
but this doesn't seem perfect and landuse key doesn't logically lend
itself well to specifying details about the events that might be
taking place there. A lot of fairgrounds in Canada end up being tagged
as a park for lack of a better description.



Two different things;

What the land is used for the majority of the time. A 'landuse'.

What event regularly takes place here. An 'event'.

OSM already has a 'landuse' key. Is it time for an 'event' key?



See also related discussion in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents



Confuses the land use with the event?



--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

Feb 25, 2020, 23:16 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 16:56, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
> > wrote:
>
>> generally, I thought that was agreed, we do not map events, but we do map 
>> places where events take (regularly) place.
>>
>
> But I have seen a few places on the map where a street motor race is held 
> once a year, but they are mapped as a motor racing track, with a description 
> "whatever race held the first weekend of October".
>
> Should they then be deleted?
>

Is it rarely used race track or is it normal road/field used once a year for 
racing?

First should be taggable, in the second case I would probably delete it.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-25 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 16:56, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> generally, I thought that was agreed, we do not map events, but we do map
> places where events take (regularly) place.
>

But I have seen a few places on the map where a street motor race is held
once a year, but they are mapped as a motor racing track, with a
description "whatever race held the first weekend of October".

Should they then be deleted?

  Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Andy Mabbett

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 20:46, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:
>
> On 2/25/20 4:05 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:

> > We should not, of course, remove either the full URLs nor the whole
> > PoIs, since that would open us up to attack from bad actors
> > masquerading as the companies whose commercial sites we depict. And
> > would in any case be a ridiculous over-reaction, and damaging to our
> > reputation.
>
> I don't think anyone is suggesting to remove whole URLs or POIs

Remarkable though it may seem, that's exactly what was proposed:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-February/051285.html

I would in these situations remove the whole POI, and
not just the tracking parameters.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Shawn K. Quinn

On 2/25/20 4:05 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 03:36, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
> 
>> Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters,
>> WT.mc_id, utm_*, fbclid, etc?
> 
> I'd be in favour of their automated removal, and adding filters to
> prevent their future addition.
+1. I don't see why it's anyone else's business that I'm coming to their
site from OSM data.

> We should not, of course, remove either the full URLs nor the whole
> PoIs, since that would open us up to attack from bad actors
> masquerading as the companies whose commercial sites we depict. And
> would in any case be a ridiculous over-reaction, and damaging to our
> reputation.

I don't think anyone is suggesting to remove whole URLs or POIs; it's
all about removing the tracking rubbish and only the tracking rubbish.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-25 Thread Markus

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 19:44, Jan Michel  wrote:
>
> Hi,
> isn't this exactly what a amenity=give_box is? Just for food and not for
> toys or clothes.

Yes, similar. On the other hand, public bookcases, which have their
own tag, are also kind of give boxes.

> With your proposed tags, we would need yet another one for non-cooled
> food, so this is a bad idea in my opinion.
>
> So, I suggest:
> amenity = give_box
> food = only
> refrigerated = yes

Not perfect, but way better than amenity=recycling or
amenity=social_facility in my opinion.

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-25 Thread Jan Michel


Hi,
isn't this exactly what a amenity=give_box is? Just for food and not for 
toys or clothes.
With your proposed tags, we would need yet another one for non-cooled 
food, so this is a bad idea in my opinion.


So, I suggest:
amenity = give_box
food = only
refrigerated = yes


Jan

On 25.02.20 16:44, Markus wrote:

Hello all

I've noticed that recycling:food= has been added [1] to
amenity=recycling wiki page with the meaning "community fridge [2] to
help reduce food waste".



As we already use amenity=public_bookcase and amenity=give_box for two
very similar facilities, it seems better to use something like
amenity=public_refrigerator or amenity=community_fridge.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-25 Thread Markus

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
>
> I agree with your thoughts re not using amenity=recycling. I've tagged
> a couple of Community Fridges near me as
>
> amenity=social_facility + social_facility=community_fridge
>
> as this tagging (although not documented anywhere) mirrors that for
> Clothing Banks, Food Banks and Soup Kitchens, which are listed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social facility , and seem to
> be related sorts of things. (Though I'm not sure how much these
> community fridges are designed to provide useful items for those in
> need, versus just help reduce waste versus. The balance is probably
> slightly different for each implementation.)

The primary aim of the public fridges here in Switzerland (example
[1]) are clearly to reduce food waste by sharing food (give something
and take something else), not to provide food for the poor (although
they can of course use them too). Therefore, amenity=social_facility
doesn't fit.

[1]: https://www.madamefrigo.ch/en/

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:39, Tim Magee  wrote:
>
> I would agree with tagging as
>
> amenity=social_facility
>
> rather than
>
> amenity=public_fridge
>
> because I would prefer not to add to many more amenity types. Rather I would
> want to subclass existing amenity types.

Is there a problem with more amenity=* keys?

Maybe it would have made sense to put all reusing facilities together
in amenity=reuse or similar, but with already 5,538 uses of
amenity=public_bookcase it's probably too late.

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-25 Thread Tim Magee

On Tuesday, February 25, 2020 12:30:13 PM EST Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 15:47, Markus  wrote:
> > I've noticed that recycling:food= has been added [1] to
> > amenity=recycling wiki page with the meaning "community fridge [2] to
> > help reduce food waste".
> > 
> > [1]:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Drecycling;
> > diff=1908674=1906084 [2]:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_fridge
> > 
> > In my opinion, it's not a good idea to tag community fridges (public
> > refrigerators) amenity=recycling, because containers for recycling or
> > reuse are only for depositing and not for picking up. What if there
> > are also containers where food can only be deposited, but not picked
> > up (similar to containers for clothing donations)? We couldn't tell
> > them apart any more.
> > 
> > As we already use amenity=public_bookcase and amenity=give_box for two
> > very similar facilities, it seems better to use something like
> > amenity=public_refrigerator or amenity=community_fridge.
> 
> I agree with your thoughts re not using amenity=recycling. I've tagged
> a couple of Community Fridges near me as
> 
> amenity=social_facility + social_facility=community_fridge
> 
> as this tagging (although not documented anywhere) mirrors that for
> Clothing Banks, Food Banks and Soup Kitchens, which are listed at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social facility , and seem to
> be related sorts of things. (Though I'm not sure how much these
> community fridges are designed to provide useful items for those in
> need, versus just help reduce waste versus. The balance is probably
> slightly different for each implementation.)
> 
> Robert.

I would agree with tagging as 

amenity=social_facility

rather than

amenity=public_fridge

because I would prefer not to add to many more amenity types. Rather I would 
want to subclass existing amenity types.

-Tim


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-25 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 15:47, Markus  wrote:
> I've noticed that recycling:food= has been added [1] to
> amenity=recycling wiki page with the meaning "community fridge [2] to
> help reduce food waste".
>
> [1]: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Drecycling=1908674=1906084
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_fridge
>
> In my opinion, it's not a good idea to tag community fridges (public
> refrigerators) amenity=recycling, because containers for recycling or
> reuse are only for depositing and not for picking up. What if there
> are also containers where food can only be deposited, but not picked
> up (similar to containers for clothing donations)? We couldn't tell
> them apart any more.
>
> As we already use amenity=public_bookcase and amenity=give_box for two
> very similar facilities, it seems better to use something like
> amenity=public_refrigerator or amenity=community_fridge.

I agree with your thoughts re not using amenity=recycling. I've tagged
a couple of Community Fridges near me as

amenity=social_facility + social_facility=community_fridge

as this tagging (although not documented anywhere) mirrors that for
Clothing Banks, Food Banks and Soup Kitchens, which are listed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social facility , and seem to
be related sorts of things. (Though I'm not sure how much these
community fridges are designed to provide useful items for those in
need, versus just help reduce waste versus. The balance is probably
slightly different for each implementation.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-25 Thread Markus

Hello all

I've noticed that recycling:food= has been added [1] to
amenity=recycling wiki page with the meaning "community fridge [2] to
help reduce food waste".

[1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Drecycling=1908674=1906084
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_fridge

In my opinion, it's not a good idea to tag community fridges (public
refrigerators) amenity=recycling, because containers for recycling or
reuse are only for depositing and not for picking up. What if there
are also containers where food can only be deposited, but not picked
up (similar to containers for clothing donations)? We couldn't tell
them apart any more.

As we already use amenity=public_bookcase and amenity=give_box for two
very similar facilities, it seems better to use something like
amenity=public_refrigerator or amenity=community_fridge.

What do you think?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Best regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters




Feb 25, 2020, 07:51 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 25. Feb 2020, at 04:37, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>>
>> Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*, 
>> fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki.
>>
>
>
>
> I guess this should better be discussed on talk and likely on the OSMF board, 
> but it doesn’t seem far fetched to assume most mappers are opposing the use 
> of tracking codes in OpenStreetMap tags.
>
Such tagging issues can, should and are decided to be unwanted by mappers.

OSMF is not necessary here.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-25 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These shows do take place at a permanent site.
>
> They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted.
>
> The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the same 
> time each year.
>
> They are part of Australian culture, and it would seem British culture.

I also wish for a settled tag for a regular, locally important event
that is repeatedly or always held at a given site.

I have tagged location of one such in Canada with landuse=fairground
but this doesn't seem perfect and landuse key doesn't logically lend
itself well to specifying details about the events that might be
taking place there. A lot of fairgrounds in Canada end up being tagged
as a park for lack of a better description.

See also related discussion in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Jonathon Rossi

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> I added explicit
> "**It means that tracking parameters (mc_id, utm_*, fbclid etc) should be
> removed"
> in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:website=1962111=1941669
>

Thanks. Let's hope a few people see it.

-- 
Jono
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters




Feb 25, 2020, 12:21 by frede...@remote.org:

> Hi,
>
> On 25.02.20 11:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> Yes. And we don't even need to do that: we can verify it with about 30
>> seconds' Googling.
>>
>
> Ok ok you're right.
>
> The URL does contain a tracking token but it does not exclusively track
> OSM usage.
>
> I have overreacted because I have in the past dealt with advertisers who
> had added an OSM-specific "campaign" ID the the links which was clearly
> out of line, and suspected the same here.
>
> This leads to the interesting question of what the correct URL for a
> business is and who decides that. If the business owner says "but the
> correct URL for my business is ...?wdycf=openstreetmap", what do we do?
>
Check whatever url works after removing tracking.

> In theory they could configure their web site to only accept a few
> well-defined wdycf values.
>
In this case I would either remove url or change url to other valid
wdycf value. And I would probably request blocking such user by DWG.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters




Feb 25, 2020, 13:06 by j...@jonorossi.com:

> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:40 PM Victor/tuxayo <> vic...@tuxayo.net> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20-02-25 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>   > Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*,
>>   > fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki.
>>  
>>  >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website
>>  
>>  It's implied in the following best practice:
>>  
>>  > Use as short a URL as possible. Choose simple URLs over complex URLs if 
>> they basically point to the same content. For example, use >> 
>> https://bahn.de/>>  instead of >> https://www.bahn.de/p/view/index.shtml>> , 
>> as both will get you to the front page. Websites are frequently redesigned, 
>> so strive for the most "robust" URL that works.
>>
>
> Thanks. I did think that statement would apply here, but it just didn't have 
> as strong of a wording. I do wonder if some contributors don't realise that 
> these parameters are not necessary to function, and that they should actually 
> remove them.
>
I added explicit
"**It means that tracking parameters (mc_id, utm_*, fbclid etc) should be 
removed"
in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:website=1962111=1941669
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Jonathon Rossi

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:40 PM Victor/tuxayo  wrote:

>
> On 20-02-25 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>  > Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*,
>  > fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website
>
> It's implied in the following best practice:
>
> > Use as short a URL as possible. Choose simple URLs over complex URLs if
> they basically point to the same content. For example, use
> https://bahn.de/ instead of https://www.bahn.de/p/view/index.shtml, as
> both will get you to the front page. Websites are frequently redesigned, so
> strive for the most "robust" URL that works.
>

Thanks. I did think that statement would apply here, but it just didn't
have as strong of a wording. I do wonder if some contributors don't realise
that these parameters are not necessary to function, and that they should
actually remove them.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:22 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Ok ok you're right.
>
> The URL does contain a tracking token but it does not exclusively track
> OSM usage.
>
> I have overreacted because I have in the past dealt with advertisers who
> had added an OSM-specific "campaign" ID the the links which was clearly
> out of line, and suspected the same here.
>

I had used this Hilton one as an example because it just happened and the
tracking parameters were so widespread, I too hadn't noticed their own web
site adds those. There are also a lot of *utm_source=ig_profile_share* ones
which individual contributors have probably added without realising wasn't
part of the website URL.

There are however ones which would have been done intentionally,
*utm_source=OpenStreetMap* and *utm_source=mapsme*.

-- 
Jono
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Andy Mabbett

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 11:21, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> (Apparently in this particular case, not only the WT.mc_id parameter is
> decorative, the whole hotel name is; even
> https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-camping-in-the-woods/ directs
> you to
> https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-doubletree-stratford-upon-avon/...)

From the page headers (extraneous parameters snipped, white space added):

https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-doubletree-stratford-upon-avon/;
>

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Hi,

On 25.02.20 11:59, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Yes. And we don't even need to do that: we can verify it with about 30
> seconds' Googling.

Ok ok you're right.

The URL does contain a tracking token but it does not exclusively track
OSM usage.

I have overreacted because I have in the past dealt with advertisers who
had added an OSM-specific "campaign" ID the the links which was clearly
out of line, and suspected the same here.

This leads to the interesting question of what the correct URL for a
business is and who decides that. If the business owner says "but the
correct URL for my business is ...?wdycf=openstreetmap", what do we do?
In theory they could configure their web site to only accept a few
well-defined wdycf values.

(Apparently in this particular case, not only the WT.mc_id parameter is
decorative, the whole hotel name is; even
https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-camping-in-the-woods/ directs
you to
https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-doubletree-stratford-upon-avon/...)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Christoph Hormann

On Tuesday 25 February 2020, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> But more broadly, we value data for its correctness, not for its
> provenance (assuming licence-compatible). You are inventing a
> suspected rationale ("an advertising campaign") on the part of the
> contributor; judging them by your own standards which aren't the
> agreed/stated values of OSM anywhere I can see; and concluding that
> the data should be deleted. That's... a stretch?

Not necessarily.  OSM - like almost any other social cooperation on the 
internet - is strongly based on reputation of its contributors.  I 
can't check every contribution of any contributor in even a small area 
but i can look at the contributor's history of contributions and their 
background as a contributor (their reputation so to speak) to assess 
how trustworthy they are.

And yes, this is unfair in the way that i will make assumptions on a 
newcomer corporate mappers based on my (bad) experience with other 
corporate mappers from the past.  That's collatoral damage inevitable 
to maintain a functioning system of social cooperation in the presence 
of a large volume of organized activities.  You can blame it on the 
corporations/organizations that have lobbied successfully against more 
meaningful regulation of said activities.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> The fact that advertising and correctness do not usually go hand in 
> hand certainly needs no discussion.

Er, yeah, it does actually. In the UK, at least, you're not meant to claim
incorrect things in adverts. There's a body called the Advertising Standards
Authority that polices that, and there's a whole load of statute law on the
subject (Trades Descriptions Act, Control of Misleading Advertisements
Regulations etc. etc.).

Clearly there are shades of grey there and some advertisers will try to get
away with half-truths. But that does not mean that, if a hotel owner says
"hey, there's a hotel here, and it's called Bob's Hotel" we should
automatically assume they're doing it for a purpose other than correctness
and therefore "remove the whole POI".

cheers
Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Hi,

On 25.02.20 11:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> But more broadly, we value data for its correctness

True. (There's a few other things we value too, but correctness
definitely is nice.)

> You are inventing a suspected rationale ("an
> advertising campaign")

Tracking components in an URL are usually a sign for an advertising
campaign. (They are often even called "campaign_ref=...".) If this is
*not* and advertising campaign but they give the outward appearance of
being one, is it then really me who is "suspecting" and "inventing"?

> on the part of the contributor; judging them by your
> own standards which aren't the agreed/stated values of OSM anywhere I can
> see

I don't follow. You said above that correctness is valued. The fact that
advertising and correctness do not usually go hand in hand certainly
needs no discussion. When I then say that we cannot trust data added as
part of an advertising campaign - is that "judging by my own standards"?

> I mean, isn't it also possible that, now we've all made such an outstanding
> success of OSM and it's used in approximately eight gazillion mapping apps,
> Hilton Hotels think it would be useful if their customers could use their
> favourite mapping app to find a hotel they're staying in?

Sure, I'm happy to compromise on "let's remove just those tags that do
not contribute to finding the hotel someone is staying in".

> Anyway, brb, got to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/312915889 from
> the map.

Clearly added in an advertising campaign. The business owner hoped to
attract more business by creating that node 11 years ago with
"addr:housenumber=17".

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Whilst I'm firmly against tracking codes, we could give the benefit of 
> the doubt and assume that they just cut-and-paste the URL and did 
> not intend to place tracking.

Yes. And we don't even need to do that: we can verify it with about 30
seconds' Googling.

Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/156041136, website= has been
set to

https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-doubletree-stratford-upon-avon/?WT.mc_id=zVSEC0GB1DT2NaturalSearch3GoogleMyBusiness4luau-SAU_Aug5luau6BHXSADI7EN8i1

Now, if you Google "Hilton Stratford-upon-Avon", and copy the link from the
"Website" button on the right, you get:

https://www.hilton.com/en/hotels/bhxsadi-doubletree-stratford-upon-avon/?WT.mc_id=zVSEC0GB1DT2NaturalSearch3GoogleMyBusiness4luau-SAU_Aug5luau6BHXSADI7EN8i1

It's the same link. Every character. 

So they're clearly not trying to track visitors expressly from OSM, they've
just copied the URL. Where they've copied it from we don't know (they might
have an internal spreadsheet of URLs, or they might have just Googled their
own property - stranger things have happened).

cheers
Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Victor/tuxayo

On 20-02-25 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*,
> fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website

It's implied in the following best practice:

Use as short a URL as possible. Choose simple URLs over complex URLs if they basically 
point to the same content. For example, use https://bahn.de/ instead of 
https://www.bahn.de/p/view/index.shtml, as both will get you to the front page. Websites 
are frequently redesigned, so strive for the most "robust" URL that works.

On 20-02-25 08:51, Jez Nicholson wrote:
> Whilst I'm firmly against tracking codes, we could give the benefit of
> the doubt and assume that they just cut-and-paste the URL and did not
> intend to place tracking.

I don't know where they get their URLs from but I just searched from 
their website a hotel and nothing is added automatically.

Asking for clarification would remove part of the doubt.

On 20-02-25 11:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either 
made by a single user, or the account is being shared between multiple 
users.

>
> Should edits not be attributable to an individual?

I don't remember seeing something like that. I could be wrong though.

Nothing here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_editing_best_practice

But it's good for us if it's not a too high traffic account, on account 
helps to keep track on what their are doing.

On 20-02-25 11:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of an
advertising campaign, because that means the information is not
trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to provide
unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the vehicle for an
advertising campaign.

I also get the feeling that these things are not done as genuine 
contributions to OSM in an intent to improve the database.
But we can trust them on the position of the hotel right? So at least 
this can stay in OSM.

On 20-02-25 11:27, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> But more broadly, we value data for its correctness, not for its 
provenance

> (assuming licence-compatible).

+1

On 20-02-25 11:34, Philip Barnes wrote:
> I have commented on a recent edit near me asking both questions and 
pointing out the url they should use.

Thanks a lot, can you post the changeset for the record? So we can check 
later if they responded if this goes out of your radar.

Cheers,

--
Victor/tuxayo

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Philip Barnes

I have commented on a recent edit near me asking both questions and pointing 
out the url they should use.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25.02.20 11:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either made 
> > by a single user, or the account is being shared between multiple users.
> 
> Has someone contacted them about the issue already? If they're a single
> person we could request that they remove the tracking information,
> rather than us having to deal with it.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Andy Townsend

On 25/02/2020 10:16, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 25.02.20 11:08, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Frederik Ramm wrote:

Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these
situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking
parameters.

¿Que? You'd remove an entire hotel from the map because... ok, I'm having
trouble finishing that sentence: because what exactly?

I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of an
advertising campaign, because that means the information is not
trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to provide
unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the vehicle for an
advertising campaign.

Having communicated with "Hilton Hotels" in the past, I get the
impression that they're just trying to "keep OSM up to date". They're
not adding "marketing crap" in fields such as "description". I also
don't get the impression that there are a huge army of people updating
OSM from their end either - it appeared to me like there was essentially
just one person.

Using "website:" rather than "website" just looks like cockup rather
than conspiracy. I have no idea where the "?" parameter came from, but
given that they don't similar tag links from twitter (that just goes to
https://doubletree3.hilton.com/en/hotels/united-kingdom/doubletree-by-hilton-hotel-london-kingston-up
) that might just be cockup also - copying a link from an internal URL
that had that appended.

Best Regards,

Andy

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of 
> an advertising campaign, because that means the information is not
> trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to 
> provide unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the 
> vehicle for an advertising campaign.

In the example cited, the "whole POI" wasn't added as part of an advertising
campaign, the property owner just added metadata:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2411243835/history .

But more broadly, we value data for its correctness, not for its provenance
(assuming licence-compatible). You are inventing a suspected rationale ("an
advertising campaign") on the part of the contributor; judging them by your
own standards which aren't the agreed/stated values of OSM anywhere I can
see; and concluding that the data should be deleted. That's... a stretch?

I mean, isn't it also possible that, now we've all made such an outstanding
success of OSM and it's used in approximately eight gazillion mapping apps,
Hilton Hotels think it would be useful if their customers could use their
favourite mapping app to find a hotel they're staying in?

Anyway, brb, got to delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/312915889 from
the map.

cheers
Richard

--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Hi,

On 25.02.20 11:01, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either made by 
> a single user, or the account is being shared between multiple users.

Has someone contacted them about the issue already? If they're a single
person we could request that they remove the tracking information,
rather than us having to deal with it.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Hi,

On 25.02.20 11:08, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these 
>> situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking
>> parameters.
> 
> ¿Que? You'd remove an entire hotel from the map because... ok, I'm having
> trouble finishing that sentence: because what exactly?

I'd remove things from OSM that have been clearly added as part of an
advertising campaign, because that means the information is not
trustworthy. The purpose of an advertising campaign is not to provide
unbiased, factual information, hence OSM cannot be the vehicle for an
advertising campaign.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these 
> situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking
> parameters.

¿Que? You'd remove an entire hotel from the map because... ok, I'm having
trouble finishing that sentence: because what exactly?

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Andy Mabbett

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 03:36, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters,
> WT.mc_id, utm_*, fbclid, etc?

I'd be in favour of their automated removal, and adding filters to
prevent their future addition.

We should not, of course, remove either the full URLs nor the whole
PoIs, since that would open us up to attack from bad actors
masquerading as the companies whose commercial sites we depict. And
would in any case be a ridiculous over-reaction, and damaging to our
reputation.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

2020-02-25 Thread Philip Barnes

On Tuesday, 25 February 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 25.02.20 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> > Ignoring they've just added an incorrect "website:" key when there is
> > already a "website" one, Hilton Hotels appear to be adding URLs with
> > WT.mc_id parameters to all their web site links.
> 
> The presence of such tracking parameters is an indication of the author
> considering OSM to be a "campaign" in some marketing scenario where the
> success of different "campaigns" is measured.
> 
> Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these situations
> remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking parameters.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
Another issue I have with Hilton Hotels is all edits are made either made by a 
single user, or the account is being shared between multiple users.

Should edits not be attributable to an individual?

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows


On 25/2/20 6:09 pm, Jez Nicholson wrote:
Temporal events really do not belong in OSM. I can see a good argument 
for Parkruns (the route exists in between runs and is used every 
week), or for annual shows held on a permanent showground, Christmas 
markets less so.


Delete it.



These shows do take place at a permanent site.

They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted.

The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the 
same time each year.


They are part of Australian culture, and it would seem British culture.

If some events are allowed, then why are others of seemingly equal worth 
to be deleted?



An example of varying dates, a rodeo rather than a 'show';

http://www.isarodeo.com.au/about-us/future-dates/

6 - 9 August 2020

12 - 15 August 2021

11- 14 August 2022





On Tue, 25 Feb 2020, 06:45 Graeme Fitzpatrick, > wrote:



On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 13:47, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

But this event seems to be similar to an American “county
fair”, maybe? There is entertainment, music, food, expositions
of local crafts and produce, equestrian events, etc, lasting a
week or so?


All that, but "small" town are shows usually only for a weekend,
sometimes only 1 day, sometimes stretched out to a 3-day long weekend.

Each (most?) Oz state capital city also has an annual "Show"
(under a variety of names) which is the same again on a grand
scale, which lasts for ~10 days

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters