Talk:Proposed features/Internet access

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

internet=

Good suggestion, this is a much better proposal than the previous rejected hotspot. But the proposed values of the tag internet=* is something I don't like. they should rather be something like service for internet cafees, wireless or wlan for buildings offering free wlan, wired or cable for places where a wired connection is available, or combined if both wired and wireless is available. Hotels that offer wlan and/or wired internet against a fee is not to be tagged this way as that is a hotel service, and not a public service. All of my suggested values except for service should be free of charge. --Skippern 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that the equation service=costs is intuatively understandable. E.g.: A library that offers free internet as "service" is more service than a shop allows a phone company to run a commercial hotspot.

But maybe, we should not use informations like the price in the database. Just "wired" and "wlan" and nothing about costs. --Krasnoj 19:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I used the word service in lack of another good word for an internet cafee. If you can come up with a better word, please suggest. I agree that a free hotspot is a much better service than an internet cafee, but we need a way of tagging each option. --Skippern 19:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
How about something like kiosk, terminal or desktop? Larskr 01:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually I see service as a better tag for an internet cafe than kiosk, terminal sounds more like those vending-machine like terminals, where you can put on some coins and check out some pre-linked web pages or browse to the largest web-mail providers like hotmail or gmail. I find service rather fitting for internet cafes because there are people there helping you with problems, while most places offering wlan have no help line at all. --Skippern 09:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We should have values to indicate the different technical solutions for offering internet access.

  • I'd rate wired LAN to be the most basic service needed to qualify. Bring your own device.
  • E.g. hotels or hostels may also offer WLAN for your own device.
  • Internet cafes offer preconfigured machines already connected.

All these possibilities are non-exclusive, you can have an internet cafe offering LAN, WLAN and machines. SvenR 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to tag internet in hotels if it is only for persons that sleep in the hotel? In this case we should introduce a tag like "restricted". --Krasnoj 08:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it than easier to tag hotels that DON'T offer internet? internet=no would than only be applicable for a few hotels. --Skippern 10:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The section Other tagging exclusive price information seems to be partly redundant and thus rather confusing. Maybe it should be removed? Btw. internet=service sounds clearer than internet=public. Larskr

This was the template from the draft. I restructered it. If you have better ideas for tag values or how the price can be changed, feel free to update the proposal or suggest it here. --Krasnoj 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

internet_access=wired probably better than internet_access=wired_access - less typing, easier to spell. Ojw 00:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I have changed it. --Krasnoj 00:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Find a better tag name

"internet" has a very broad meaning and might be used for different purposes later. The tag name should simply state what the mapper has found here: "internet access" or maybe "internet connectivity". I am sure somebody will come up with a better name which clearly indicates that there is not "internet" to be found, but some kind of access method to get internet. SvenR 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already a internet_access proposal (abandon). If you have nothing against it, I will overtake it enemely --Krasnoj 21:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Free or paid

Simple idea for marking whether it's free of charge: Proposed features/Price tags

Neglect that this proposal is not voted by now, I see another problem. internet_access is not thought as primary tag. So the cost tag would be belonging to the main tag. Maybe we should make an own namespace internet instead of just a key. In this case the tag would be: internet:access. And then the cost could be tagged as internet:cost. The idea was taken from [Posting talk-de[1]] .--Krasnoj 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

terminal / cafe

I feel internet access=terminal is more like some of these internet terminals that can be found on some airports/railway stations and other such public places. These are more in the form of a standalone terminal or vending machine, where you are given limited internet access after paying a fee by coins or credit card. Actually, in Kristiansand, Norway I saw one such on the street in a downtown area exclusively for pedestrians. An internet cafe should rather be tagged internet access=service/cafe. --Skippern 10:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, if we really want to differ an airport terminal and an internet cafe. The internet_access is not thought as primary tag. If there is a tag like:

amenity=cafe; internet_access=terminal

It should be clear, that there is a normal PC where you can sit on a chair. On the other hand on a railway station it is likely that you have stand in front of it. Also it is not clear for me what differs the railway terminal and a pc in the internet cafe, except the fact wheter you can sit or not.
I have problems with the tag =service, because it is not clear what it means. Service can be everything and it is not clear, if it is now a terminal or a wlan or something else. =cafe is bad, because there is small difference between internet access in a shop, a cafe or a library. For a shop =cafe is wrong.
But if you have a word which makes clear that the terminal is given, please suggest it. =terminal is by now the best word I can think of. --Krasnoj 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
By amenity=cafe you imply that I can buy a cup of cafe there, but for most such places here in Brazil (often called LAN House), no services except internet and photocopying is offered. Strip off all other tags and we sit back with a node tagged internet_access=terminal and it doesn't tell you whether it is an unmanned terminal (vending machine like) or if it is a manned location with opening hours. I still feel that terminal is for an unmanned terminal vending machine style, and something else, such as service or cafe or maybe even use the Brazilian term LAN House for a manned location. Besides, I would expect the cafe that offers internet to have something like internet_access=wlan in addition to the two computers in the corner. --Skippern 18:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference we're really trying to point-out here? The PCs in an internet cafe might have a mouse instead of a scrollball, and be able to run desktop programs instead of being locked in browser mode, they may be able to use port 6667 instead of just port 80? They may be able to run games? They may have a better browser, or a hard disk. They may have a proper keyboard instead of a vandal-proof metal mini-keyboard. They may have nicer seats, or be in a warmer room. Which of those features do we really want to tag?
Hotels, libraries, museums, conference centres and office buildings all provide a similarly-configured PC to what's being described here as a 'cafe' type internet access, maybe there's a word to describe them all which doesn't require that they serve coffee?
Fundamentally, both the 'PC in a phone box' and an internet cafe, and webTV in a hotel room (which might be another category?) provide a computer to use instead of requiring you to bring your own, which distinguishes them from a wifi aerial or an ethernet socket in a hotel room. Something more precise would be good though, if it gives you a better idea of what to expect at the location. Ojw 00:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
internet_access=terminal is for me an unmanned / automated service, what the state of equipment is not of interest to me, I do not care if they offer 10 year old x386 computers running Windows 3.11 or if they are brand new high-tech computers running the latest software on the market. My point is that the terminal can be in a public space available 24/7 while the LAN House have opening hours, and this is a vital difference. Or do you want to solve this by access=* or opening hours=*? --Skippern 10:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I added internet_access=service please check if the description is OK for you. I thought about a tag, which is only be allowed to be used, if there is personal only for the internet_access. Is this true for youre LAN houses? --Krasnoj 17:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Good description, sounds about right. Some of them also offers services like refilling printer cartridges, sending faxes or making photocopies, but you cannot have a tag for everything. --Skippern 18:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

FON

I think you can internet_access=wlan and operator=fon and perhaps charge=yes. BTW: I like this proposal. Sven Anders 16:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

internet access / internet connection

how about this combination:

  • internet access = free, happy happy free public internet
  • internet access = paid, payment on access availble (credit card etc.)
  • internet access = prepaid, need to buy pre-paid card on site
  • internet access = service, get if free if you're a customer (think hotels etc.)
  • internet access = restricted, paid, and only for customers (telco hotspots etc.)
  • internet connection = booth - phone booth type
  • internet connection = terminal - think desktop PC
  • internet connection = outlet - Bring your own PC
  • internet connection = wireless - Laptop galore

Alexanderpas 01:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I find this substantially better than the current proposal.--Extremecarver 13:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Vote-protocoll

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. With optional price if possible. similar to what Alexanderpas suggested. nmixter 23:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - -- Krasnoj 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't approve this proposal - I think we should put clear guidelines for price information until deciding on this topic. I do support the tag and advise to use it already, but fear that if we don't have price information (at least a clear distinction between paid and free (and networks like FON) that this may be forgotten for too long. Once there are clear guidelines (either within this proposal, or seperate), please consider my vote as YES. --Extremecarver 00:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I approve this proposal. I don't think that the price information discussion will be solved in the near future, therefore delaying the tag in question doesn't make much sense at this very moment. - --MarkusPiff 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Price information is not of direct interest, and is up to each service provider, the importance of this tag is to show where there are public access. I am open for future improvements, but accepts this tag as suggested. --Skippern 03:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I think the Information about prices could be added later. I see no conflict with this tag. --Master 08:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. But clarifications (and localizations) are neded a few months after adopting it, if this proposal is to be considered as an accepted feature. -Ianlopez1115 09:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. SvenR 09:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Larskr 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Jldominguez 11:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Walley 15:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Josias 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--computerfritze 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. without price information. --ErichS 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. though I'd like to see a 'free/fee' extension --Cohort 23:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. With the specific recommendations: a) extend within the internet_access: namespace to cover gratis vs. paid, b) extend within the namespace to cover ask-at-the-bar-for-the-password vs. free-as-a-public-service, c) emphasise that it's applicable to areas as well as nodes (just in case). --achadwick 01:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Same suggestions like achadwick has written. --Marco.horstmann 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--PeterZuger 21:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Meme 06:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I would also like to have pricing information though, as to me this is quite relevant for usage of this information -- Dieterdreist 11:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Michael_K ¿! 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. With the specific recommendations: a) extend within the internet_access: namespace to cover gratis vs. paid, b) extend within the namespace to cover ask-at-the-bar-for-the-password vs. free-as-a-public-service, c) emphasise that it's applicable to areas as well as nodes (just in case). --Benedikt.L 12:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)