On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 08:25, Valor Naram via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > My proposal: > - Moving all social media keys like `facebook`, `twitter`, `whatsapp`, > `telegram` etc. to a `socialmedia` namespace like `socialmedia:facebook`, > `socialmedia:twitter`, `socialmedia:whatsapp`, `socialmedia:telegram` etc. > Why do you think this is useful? The sole justification for namespaces I can see is preventing key collisions. There are two reasons when preventing key collisions is desirable: 1) A sub-key would have two entirely different meanings depending upon which main key it is used with. This would be confusing. 2) A sub-key has the same meaning when used with two or more main keys but takes a different sub-set of values depending which main key it is used with. For editors which populate drop-downs from the wiki or wikidata, this means users are presented with some choices which do not make sense or are invalid with the main key they have used. It may also mean they are presented with an awkwardly long list of choices in the drop-down, many of which are not applicable with that main key. Perhaps there are other valid reasons for namespaces. A simple desire to group things for neatness is not one of them. Can you present a likely scenario in which we would use a different prefix with facebook, whatsapp, etc. other than socialmedia? One that could not be solved by using a namespace for the new scenario? Bear in mind that these social media companies defend their trademarks vigorously and that even in jurisdictions where the same word may be used as a trademark in different categories, Facebook are likely to throw more money at a law suit than Facebook Paint, Facebook Frozen Foods and the like are able to match and in such law suits the deepest pocket usually wins. This seems to be grouping for the sake of grouping where no grouping is necessary. You tried it with phone and website and that was not greeted enthusiastically so your response is to come up with more needless groiuping. Now the difficult part begins because no "mechanical edit" is possible (or > at least very difficult and error-prone) here: > - `contact:website`: Only websites to be used for contacting purpose only > (and having little or no information character). > Can you give me an example of such a website? Can you then show where it has been mapped? Can you then show where the POI's main website does not provide a link to the contact website and that therefore both are necessary? -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
