Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Phone number tidy-up is now complete, per the original discussion.  I 
think we still could clean up this list further I welcome any 
discussion in that regard.  Any phone numbers using letters instead of 
numbers remain with letters.


The top 10 formats used in Canada are:

  20640 phone"+#-###-###-
   4457 phone"+# ###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2630 phone"+# ### ###-
   1293 fax"+#-###-###-
    940 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    118 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    110 phone"###-
 40 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-

On 2018-02-07 06:46 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:


A further update on this work:

  * I found more yet bizarre phone-related tags "phone:1",
"telephone" and the like.  These have all been tidied.  My
osmfilter now looks like this:    --keep="contact:*=* or
phone*=* or Phone*=* or alt_phone=* or fax*=* or tty*=*"
Additional suggestions for something to search on are welcome so
I get all phone numbers.
  * I found there were some formats used very regionally eg. 
Edmonton Schools used one format consistently and Ottawa Schools
used a different format consistently.
  * The canada.poly filter I have been using includes Saint Pierre
and Miquelon (which does not use North American dialing plan),
as well as a few US entries (especially relations which go near
the border). If anyone knows of a canada.poly that is tighter,
can you point me in the direction?  I am generally leaving
non-Canadian entries alone, but they do count in the stats below.
  * There are now 67 unique tag/phone number format combinations
(down from 400+ originally) when using   egrep -i
'k="[a-z:]*(phone|fax|tty)[a-z:]*" ' $OSMFILENAME | cut -d\"
-f2,4 | sed -e 's/[0-9]/#/g' | sed -e 's/[A-Z]/A/g' | sed -e
's/([a-zA-Z -]*)/(...)/g' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | wc -l
  * The bulk of the work remaining now is to reformat the big groups
of numbers that do not begin with "+1". I will make changes by
area code to limit the number of canada-wide changesets.


As always, comments welcome.

Here is the new "top 20"as of ~10am ET today:

  12555 phone"+#-###-###-
   4453 phone"+# ###-###-
   4060 phone"###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2624 phone"+# ### ###-
   2239 phone"(###) ###-
   1292 fax"+#-###-###-
   1032 phone"##
    941 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    323 phone"+###
    322 phone"+# ### ###
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    117 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    109 phone"###-
 39 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-
 25 phone"+#-###-###-
 23 phone"+#-###-###-x###
 17 phone"+# (###) ###-
 14 phone"+#-###-###-x
  9 phone"+#-###-###-x#


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

A further update on this work:

 * I found more yet bizarre phone-related tags "phone:1", "telephone"
   and the like.  These have all been tidied.  My osmfilter now looks
   like this:    --keep="contact:*=* or phone*=* or Phone*=* or
   alt_phone=* or fax*=* or tty*=*"  Additional suggestions for
   something to search on are welcome so I get all phone numbers.
 * I found there were some formats used very regionally eg. Edmonton
   Schools used one format consistently and Ottawa Schools used a
   different format consistently.
 * The canada.poly filter I have been using includes Saint Pierre and
   Miquelon (which does not use North American dialing plan), as well
   as a few US entries (especially relations which go near the
   border). If anyone knows of a canada.poly that is tighter, can you
   point me in the direction?  I am generally leaving non-Canadian
   entries alone, but they do count in the stats below.
 * There are now 67 unique tag/phone number format combinations (down
   from 400+ originally) when using   egrep -i
   'k="[a-z:]*(phone|fax|tty)[a-z:]*" ' $OSMFILENAME | cut -d\" -f2,4
   | sed -e 's/[0-9]/#/g' | sed -e 's/[A-Z]/A/g' | sed -e 's/([a-zA-Z
   -]*)/(...)/g' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | wc -l
 * The bulk of the work remaining now is to reformat the big groups
   of numbers that do not begin with "+1".  I will make changes by
   area code to limit the number of canada-wide changesets.


As always, comments welcome.

Here is the new "top 20"as of ~10am ET today:

  12555 phone"+#-###-###-
   4453 phone"+# ###-###-
   4060 phone"###-###-
   3749 phone"+# ### ### 
   2624 phone"+# ### ###-
   2239 phone"(###) ###-
   1292 fax"+#-###-###-
   1032 phone"##
    941 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    323 phone"+###
    322 phone"+# ### ###
    158 contact:fax"+#-###-###-
    117 phone:tollfree"+#-###-###-
    109 phone"###-
 39 phone"+#-###-###-;+#-###-###-
 25 phone"+#-###-###-
 23 phone"+#-###-###-x###
 17 phone"+# (###) ###-
 14 phone"+#-###-###-x
  9 phone"+#-###-###-x#



On 2018-02-04 11:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:37 PM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:

Just an update on this activity.

Again, nice work!


Here are the top 20 tags as of ~4pm ET Sunday:

   10669 phone"+#-###-###-
4392 phone"+# ###-###-
4206 phone"###-###-
2970 phone"+# ### ### 
2540 phone"+# ### ###-
2451 phone"(###) ###-
1076 phone"##
 659 phone"+# ### ###
 547 fax"+#-###-###-
 522 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
 516 phone"+###
 456 phone"#-###-###-
 446 phone"### ### 
 378 fax"+# ###-###-
 283 contact:phone"### ###-
 260 phone"+# (###) ###-
 200 fax"+###
 186 phone"### ###-
 170 phone"(###)###-
 162 fax"+# ### ###-

I'd appreciate others to chime in about this, but it seems where dashes and space 
characters overlap (are the only difference in format), those can be conflated together.  
I'm not sure whether dash or space ends up as "the winner," but this should 
reduce the number of categories.

As you consider additional conflations, you may be able to do this again and 
again, getting it down to a fairly small number of formats.  I urge additional 
feedback (here would be good) before additional conflations, but (I keep saying 
it):  nice work.

SteveA


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Stewart,

I have no problem to make those edits, but would want others to chime 
in this discussion before I make that sort of change.   OTOH, If 
others want to make the change, then I stay out of it.


On 2018-02-06 01:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-02-05 05:17 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:

use the letters instead of numbers "+1-555-GOT-BEER"

I'd suggest mapping these to the numbers BUT international phone pads
have a superset of what we use here (7 has Q and 9 has Z) and older
phones may not be consistent with what we assume now. In the UK, ABC
used to be on 2.



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi Stewart,

Thanks for your comment. I'm relatively new to OSM, so I don't have 
all the history, so I appreciate you and others jumping in.


I saw the discussion page when I started working on this.  However, it 
is from 2012, so I'm not clear if this represents current state or 
not. People are still clearly adding contact:phone etc tags


I can see contact:twitter/facebook/etc is way more popular than 
twitter/facebook alone.   So if we use the non contact:* type, then 
these don't align with the majority. Or would you suggest 
phone/fax/website don't use contact: where as twitter/facebook do use 
that prefix?


I personally don't have a strong opinion on which way to go, other 
than try to be consistent.


I tried the iD editor... and it seems to have support for contact:*, 
but use "phone/fax/email/website" in the quick pick list.



On 2018-02-06 01:10 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-02-05 04:44 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:

I don't know why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=*

Because it's the default in most editors, and it's shorter. I'd prefer
it over contact:phone, because that's a needless namespace. Also, this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:contact#Deprecate_this_tag_family

  Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-05 05:17 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> 
> use the letters instead of numbers "+1-555-GOT-BEER"

I'd suggest mapping these to the numbers BUT international phone pads
have a superset of what we use here (7 has Q and 9 has Z) and older
phones may not be consistent with what we assume now. In the UK, ABC
used to be on 2.

cheers,
 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-02-05 04:44 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I don't know why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=*

Because it's the default in most editors, and it's shorter. I'd prefer
it over contact:phone, because that's a needless namespace. Also, this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:contact#Deprecate_this_tag_family

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

From the wiki, I am proposing this format specifically:

(phone=+--, following the RFC 
3966/NANP  pattern)


However, convert that to "contact:phone=" instead.

The reason I like the one with hypens (vs spaces) is that when you add 
additional comments in the field as in "+1-800-555-1234 (toll-free)" 
or use the letters instead of numbers "+1-555-GOT-BEER" the hypens 
make it much more clear what is part of the phone number and what is not.



On 2018-02-05 05:02 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

Hey, a discussion for multi-contact and phone tag semantics-meets-syntax.  
Excellent!

Note how our tag:phone wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:phone hews pretty strongly to ITU-T E.164.  That is 
a goal to shoot for, as what it calls "user agents" is what I referred to as "a phone number 
parser."  There is some caution ("not voted on just documentation of use") about 
country-specific usage, should Canada fully embrace something unique.

I can also imagine a "sweeper script" (specific to Canada geographically, if 
you wish) which does selecting-new-and-possibly-unorthodox phone numbers getting run once 
in a while, say twice a year, to keep a checking eye on things.  That could be a short 
Overpass Turbo script plus a few minutes of human analysis similar to the sort you 
(Matthew) are doing now.

Like mowing the lawn, as I think about it.  Sure, I had to buy a lawnmower and 
I even sharpen the blades now and then.  So, the task is easy.

SteveA
California


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

Hey, a discussion for multi-contact and phone tag semantics-meets-syntax.  
Excellent!

Note how our tag:phone wiki https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:phone hews pretty 
strongly to ITU-T E.164.  That is a goal to shoot for, as what it calls "user 
agents" is what I referred to as "a phone number parser."  There is some 
caution ("not voted on just documentation of use") about country-specific 
usage, should Canada fully embrace something unique.

I can also imagine a "sweeper script" (specific to Canada geographically, if 
you wish) which does selecting-new-and-possibly-unorthodox phone numbers 
getting run once in a while, say twice a year, to keep a checking eye on 
things.  That could be a short Overpass Turbo script plus a few minutes of 
human analysis similar to the sort you (Matthew) are doing now.

Like mowing the lawn, as I think about it.  Sure, I had to buy a lawnmower and 
I even sharpen the blades now and then.  So, the task is easy.

SteveA
California
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

After editing a few thousand phone numbers in the last week, my 
preferred format is *contact:phone=+#-###-###-**

*
My reason is that people are starting to use other tags from the 
contact:* family so cannot move everything to phone=*, and having both 
phone=* and contact:phone=* seems unreasonable.  However, phone-=* is 
currently much more popular.


If phone=* is more popular because people keep adding more phone=* 
tags simply because it is more popular (self-fulfilling feedback 
loop), then maybe moving to contact:phone=* over time might be 
reasonable.  If people are using phone=* because of dislike of 
contact:phone=* then sticking with status quo is better.  I don't know 
why people use phone=* vs contact:phone=*


Thoughts/opinions welcome.

[I used "phone" in above discussion, however it equally applies to "fax"].



On 2018-02-04 11:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:
I'd appreciate others to chime in about this, but it seems where 
dashes and space characters overlap (are the only difference in 
format), those can be conflated together. I'm not sure whether dash 
or space ends up as "the winner," but this should reduce the number 
of categories.

As you consider additional conflations, you may be able to do this again and 
again, getting it down to a fairly small number of formats.  I urge additional 
feedback (here would be good) before additional conflations, but (I keep saying 
it):  nice work.

SteveA


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Feb 4, 2018, at 8:37 PM, Matthew Darwin  wrote:
> Just an update on this activity.

Again, nice work!

> Here are the top 20 tags as of ~4pm ET Sunday:
> 
>   10669 phone"+#-###-###-
>4392 phone"+# ###-###-
>4206 phone"###-###-
>2970 phone"+# ### ### 
>2540 phone"+# ### ###-
>2451 phone"(###) ###-
>1076 phone"##
> 659 phone"+# ### ###
> 547 fax"+#-###-###-
> 522 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
> 516 phone"+###
> 456 phone"#-###-###-
> 446 phone"### ### 
> 378 fax"+# ###-###-
> 283 contact:phone"### ###-
> 260 phone"+# (###) ###-
> 200 fax"+###
> 186 phone"### ###-
> 170 phone"(###)###-
> 162 fax"+# ### ###-

I'd appreciate others to chime in about this, but it seems where dashes and 
space characters overlap (are the only difference in format), those can be 
conflated together.  I'm not sure whether dash or space ends up as "the 
winner," but this should reduce the number of categories.

As you consider additional conflations, you may be able to do this again and 
again, getting it down to a fairly small number of formats.  I urge additional 
feedback (here would be good) before additional conflations, but (I keep saying 
it):  nice work.

SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Just an update on this activity.

 * I see people have been quite creative with the tags used for phone
   numbers, so it is taking me a bit longer to clean up than I
   originally thought.   Good to find all these weird tags: Phone,
   alt_phone, phone_1, phone_2, phone:tollfree, phone:toll-free, etc.
 * Radio stations and others with other explanations that are in the
   field now look like this: +#-###-###- (office);+#-###-###-
   (on-air studio)
 * When a location had multiple phone numbers, and one was toll-free,
   I put it in phone:tollfree as that seemed to be used a bit (now
   ~100 times in Canada).  Alternately I could instead consolidate
   all the toll free phone numbers into the regular phone field. 
   Suggestions welcome
   (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=tollfree)
 * For phone numbers with the wrong number of digits: If I could
   figure out what was wrong (eg there was a web site listed) then I
   fixed it. In a dozen cases I couldn't make sense of the number and
   deleted it (also delete phone numbers that were like "+1-" (no
   real number).  Where no area code was listed, I left the number as
   7 digits only (someone local can probably fix it easily).   Phone
   numbers of "911" were also removed.
 * We are now down to ~140 unique formats.  Although this is a bit
   misleading if you compare it to my ~400 formats I mentioned
   initially, that doesn't include all the other tags I found and
   fixed along the way.  I also forgot to include relations in my
   initial query they're in there now.
 * Using josm for editing: regular expression search and the to-do
   list work quite well for this task.  Although eliminating
   non-printable characters from the value took a bit to figure out. 
   (there were also values with trailing spaces)

Here are the top 20 tags as of ~4pm ET Sunday:

  10669 phone"+#-###-###-
   4392 phone"+# ###-###-
   4206 phone"###-###-
   2970 phone"+# ### ### 
   2540 phone"+# ### ###-
   2451 phone"(###) ###-
   1076 phone"##
    659 phone"+# ### ###
    547 fax"+#-###-###-
    522 contact:phone"+#-###-###-
    516 phone"+###
    456 phone"#-###-###-
    446 phone"### ### 
    378 fax"+# ###-###-
    283 contact:phone"### ###-
    260 phone"+# (###) ###-
    200 fax"+###
    186 phone"### ###-
    170 phone"(###)###-
    162 fax"+# ### ###-


On 2018-01-31 11:09 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea wrote:

• There are additionally ~45 phone numbers that use letters instead of 
digits (eg 1-555-GOT-BEER)
• ";" separator is used occasionally to indicate multiple phone numbers.  " ", 
"," and "/" are also used.
• There are random comments in the phone number field (not sure where 
these really should be?)
• Extensions are represented generally by "x" or "ext" or "ext."
• There are less than 1000 phone numbers using contact:phone instead of 
phone, using ~40 unique formats
• I did not analyze phone_1 or fax or any other tags.
I will continue to cleanup phone numbers across the country which are missing 
the leading +1 and or are not one of the 4 common formats listed above.  My 
thought is that
• I will leave the phone numbers of 1-555-GOT-BEER type.
• I will use ";" as multiple number separator.
• I will use "x" for extension.
• And I will be happy to cleanup the wonky ones with lots of text in them if 
there is a direction of where this should move to.  Example for a radio station: 
"office (###) ###-; on-air studio (###) ###-"

Feedback welcome.

Those sound largely sane and well thought out to me.  (And I wrote phone number parsers 
for the NANP about 30 years ago, um — wait for it — in HyperTalk!)  The GOT-BEER style 
are best left alone (imo) as smarter parsers eventually figure those out.  Yes, ; 
(semicolon) is a frequent separator in key:value pair value lists in OSM data.  Yes, x 
(choose a case, lower seems better and more common than upper) for extensions.  For the 
radio station/on-air studio stuff I'd make the first part of each of these "compound 
data" be the phone number in one of the acceptable formats along with other data, 
then have extra descriptive text added to the rest, even if in a semicolon-separated 
list.  That's a pretty regular set of alphanumerics and with maybe a eight or ten rules, 
(reasonable for a parser extracting machine-dialble phone numbers, if necessary), you're 
either done or at or above 99%, I'd be willing to wager (and I'm not a betting type, 
though I do play poker with friends and online).

Nice job.

SteveA


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

>   • There are additionally ~45 phone numbers that use letters instead of 
> digits (eg 1-555-GOT-BEER)
>   • ";" separator is used occasionally to indicate multiple phone 
> numbers.  " ", "," and "/" are also used.
>   • There are random comments in the phone number field (not sure where 
> these really should be?)
>   • Extensions are represented generally by "x" or "ext" or "ext."
>   • There are less than 1000 phone numbers using contact:phone instead of 
> phone, using ~40 unique formats
>   • I did not analyze phone_1 or fax or any other tags.
> I will continue to cleanup phone numbers across the country which are missing 
> the leading +1 and or are not one of the 4 common formats listed above.  My 
> thought is that 
>   • I will leave the phone numbers of 1-555-GOT-BEER type.  
>   • I will use ";" as multiple number separator.  
>   • I will use "x" for extension. 
>   • And I will be happy to cleanup the wonky ones with lots of text in 
> them if there is a direction of where this should move to.  Example for a 
> radio station: "office (###) ###-; on-air studio (###) ###-"
> 
> Feedback welcome.

Those sound largely sane and well thought out to me.  (And I wrote phone number 
parsers for the NANP about 30 years ago, um — wait for it — in HyperTalk!)  The 
GOT-BEER style are best left alone (imo) as smarter parsers eventually figure 
those out.  Yes, ; (semicolon) is a frequent separator in key:value pair value 
lists in OSM data.  Yes, x (choose a case, lower seems better and more common 
than upper) for extensions.  For the radio station/on-air studio stuff I'd make 
the first part of each of these "compound data" be the phone number in one of 
the acceptable formats along with other data, then have extra descriptive text 
added to the rest, even if in a semicolon-separated list.  That's a pretty 
regular set of alphanumerics and with maybe a eight or ten rules, (reasonable 
for a parser extracting machine-dialble phone numbers, if necessary), you're 
either done or at or above 99%, I'd be willing to wager (and I'm not a betting 
type, though I do play poker with friends and online).

Nice job.

SteveA
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Hi all,

So we get a sense of what phone number formats people are using, I 
pulled all the *phone* and *contact:phone *tags from OSM in Canada.  
The top 10 formats used are:


   8819 phone"+#-###-###-
   4321 phone"###-###-
   4298 phone"+# ###-###-
   3012 phone"+# ### ### 
   2558 phone"+# ### ###-
   2471 phone"(###) ###-
   1087 phone"##
    946 phone"+#-
    680 phone"+# ### ###
    512 phone"+###

So one of the recommended formats is the top one in use.  But there 
are 4 formats in high use which have the leading "+1", but have 
different variants of spaces/hyphens:


   8819 phone"+#-###-###-
   4298 phone"+# ###-###-
   3012 phone"+# ### ### 
   2558 phone"+# ### ###-

Other facts:

 * There are ~400 unique formats (when changing all digits to #) of
   phone and contact:phone
 * There are additionally ~45 phone numbers that use letters instead
   of digits (eg 1-555-GOT-BEER)
 * ";" separator is used occasionally to indicate multiple phone
   numbers.  " ", "," and "/" are also used.
 * There are random comments in the phone number field (not sure
   where these really should be?)
 * Extensions are represented generally by "x" or "ext" or "ext."
 * There are less than 1000 phone numbers using contact:phone instead
   of phone, using ~40 unique formats
 * I did not analyze phone_1 or fax or any other tags.

I will continue to cleanup phone numbers across the country which are 
missing the leading +1 and or are not one of the 4 common formats 
listed above.  My thought is that


 * I will leave the phone numbers of 1-555-GOT-BEER type.
 * I will use ";" as multiple number separator.
 * I will use "x" for extension.
 * And I will be happy to cleanup the wonky ones with lots of text in
   them if there is a direction of where this should move to. 
   Example for a radio station: "office (###) ###-; on-air studio
   (###) ###-"


Feedback welcome.



On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:

Hi all,

Is there a preferred phone number format we use in Canada?

I noticed a bunch of phone numbers in Ottawa don't follow the 
recommendations in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone, 
namely:


  * phone=/number/ where the /number/ should be in international
(ITU-T E.164 ) format
  o phone=+  , following
the ITU-T E.123  and the
DIN 5008  pattern
  o (phone=+--, following
the RFC 3966/NANP  pattern)

Is there a preference which of these formats is used?   Can anyone 
run a query and see which is more popular in the country?


The reason I'm asking is that since a bunch of phone numbers leave 
off the +1 (and have other errors), I want to align them to the 
recommended format.   I am wondering if I should have them in the 
format of "+1 999 555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234". If there is no 
existing preference adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to 
cleanup the non-compliant phone numbers.


Comments?

I am also assuming we prefer "phone" over "contact:phone" as per 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Matthew Darwin]

Just FYI, I am not doing an automated edit.  One at a time in JOSM.

On 2018-01-28 10:23 PM, Stewart C. Russell wrote:

On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:

I am wondering if I should have them in the format of "+1 999
555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".    If there is no existing preference
adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to cleanup the
non-compliant phone numbers.

Comments?

Please use the ITU standard: it's international, and so are we. You
never know what country an OSM user will be coming from.

The great advantage to having the +1 in a number is that Canadian cell
phones won't give you the stupid "This is a long distance call …" spiel
if you include it.

Thanks for looking at this - but as with any automated edit, please take
care.

  Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-01-28 08:22 PM, Matthew Darwin wrote:
> I am wondering if I should have them in the format of "+1 999
> 555 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".    If there is no existing preference
> adopted in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to cleanup the
> non-compliant phone numbers.
> 
> Comments?

Please use the ITU standard: it's international, and so are we. You
never know what country an OSM user will be coming from.

The great advantage to having the +1 in a number is that Canadian cell
phones won't give you the stupid "This is a long distance call …" spiel
if you include it.

Thanks for looking at this - but as with any automated edit, please take
care.

 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Preferred phone number format

[James]

personally I prefer:

RFC 3966/NANP  pattern

as its more commonly used for telephone numbers(less the country
code(unless long distance). Especially in white pages(back in the day we
had paper copies)

On Jan 28, 2018 8:24 PM, "Matthew Darwin"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Is there a preferred phone number format we use in Canada?
>
> I noticed a bunch of phone numbers in Ottawa don't follow the
> recommendations in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone, namely:
>
>- phone=*number* where the *number* should be in international (ITU-T
>E.164 ) format
>   - phone=+  , following the ITU-T
>   E.123  and the DIN 5008
>    pattern
>   - (phone=+--, following the
>   RFC 3966/NANP  pattern)
>
> Is there a preference which of these formats is used?   Can anyone run a
> query and see which is more popular in the country?
>
> The reason I'm asking is that since a bunch of phone numbers leave off the
> +1 (and have other errors), I want to align them to the recommended
> format.   I am wondering if I should have them in the format of "+1 999 555
> 1234" or "+1-999-555-1234".If there is no existing preference adopted
> in OSM Canada, I will use the latter to cleanup the non-compliant phone
> numbers.
>
> Comments?
>
> I am also assuming we prefer "phone" over "contact:phone" as per
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca