Rephrase note_body to make some keys copyable #99
Conversation
Some of the pieces of info gathered can generally be directly copied into OSM tags, while others require adapting their format, or making a more nuanced decision about whether to include them. It'd be better to distinguish these, to make it easier to process the resulting businesses. The ones I thought were copyable are: `name`, `website`, `phone`, `twitter` and `facebook`. Email could be, too -- but I don't think emails should actually be included in most cases (unless the business can be verified from street view images or surveys, *AND* the person adding the business has emailed the address and received a response confirming it as valid). The other fields have more complex formatting on OSM, so while it'd be good to eventually have this tool handle them better, for now, they need to be processed manually. I'm not sure whether or not to add the explicit warning about "Needs to be adapted to OSM tagging standards" -- but it seemed better to have than not.
| "onosm.org submitted note from a business:\n\n" + | ||
| "name=" + $("#name").val() + "\n" + | ||
| "website=" + $("#website").val() + "\n" + | ||
| "phone=" + $("#phone").val() + "\n" + |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By the way, this field probably requires the reviewer’s attention too, because the country and area code may be missing: #94. That said, phone numbers needing additional formatting are quite common in OSM anyways.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, there are a bunch of formatting adjustments that ideally would be done in the onosm code at the time the data was submitted -- things like: "Did you forget the area code?" and converting @blahblah into "https://twitter.com/blahblah". But as you said, mis-formatted values are pretty common, so it seemed safe enough to allow for copy/paste for them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is why I have generally been opposed to direct "copy paste" support. The values are almost never directly pastable, and I don't want to encourage adding bad data to OSM. If a mapper doesn't want to take the time to research a submission from onosm with first-hand data, they should leave it as-is and move on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The name value is nearly always copy-pastable, as is the website, and in most cases, the twitter and facebook. Researching is certainly needed, but not to replace these values, but to confirm the existence and location of the business. And people will still copy paste even if you use colons rather than equals signs, it'll just add a bit of extra work for no purpose.
Some of the pieces of info gathered can generally be directly copied into OSM tags, while others require adapting their format, or making a more nuanced decision about whether to include them. It'd be better to distinguish these, to make it easier to process the resulting businesses.
The ones I thought were copyable are:
name,website,phone,twitterandfacebook. Email could be, too -- but I don't think emails should actually be included in most cases (unless the business can be verified from street view images or surveys, AND the person adding the business has emailed the address and received a response confirming it as valid).The other fields have more complex formatting on OSM, so while it'd be good to eventually have this tool handle them better, for now, they need to be processed manually.
I'm not sure whether or not to add the explicit warning about "Needs to be adapted to OSM tagging standards" -- but it seemed better to have than not.