Discussions/tagging/contact:phone or phone

Phone
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Valor Naram
Tagging:	phone=* Data item
Applies to:	Key
Definition:	Tagging phone numbers of POIs
Statistics:
RFC start:	2019-09-28
Vote start:	2019-10-20
Vote end:	2019-11-05

Rationale

This proposal tends to make Key:phone the official tag for tagging phone numbers and to deprecate the tag contact:phone which is used less. It's bad to have two keys for the exact same purpose in use.

Features/Pages affected

• contact:phone - Deprecating this tag
• Key:contact - Adding deprecated note to contact:phone
• Key:Phone - Modifying/Fixing the specification of that tag with thespecification provided here

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Content

Format of phone numbers

Phone numbers should be always in the following format (ITU-T E.123 and DIN 5008):

+<country code> <area code> <local number>

or (RFC 3966/NANP)

+<country code>-<area code>-<local number>

Both in ITU-T E.164 format

Usage

Key	Description	Example	Notes
phone	Put in the phone number under which the facility which runs that POI can be contacted.	phone=+49 3316 769689	This phone number must be in international format and it must be able to call this phone number from abroad.
phone:<country code>	Phone number for people living in <country code> or speaking the language of <country code>.	phone:FR=+33 6 12654478 or phone:BE=+32 5753 6245	See the Tagging different numbers for different countries section for better explanation.

Phone numbers of telephone boxes

Even phone boxes have telephone numbers. Don't be confused. Telephone boxes must always be tagged with amenity=telephone to describe what the object is. You can add the phone=* tag to supply the extra detail of its telephone number (depending on how diligent you feel like being).

phone=+49 4721 28695 for a public phone box on the German island Neuwerk.

Tagging different numbers for different countries

Some amenities provide a different phone number for different countries (mostly seen when the amenity is on a country boundary, or is an international company).

One of the possible ways to solve this is by adding the ISO 3166-1 country code at the end of the key like phone:<country code> e.g. phone:BE. For example (all phone numbers below are invented only for documenting this page):

• phone=+32 57 53 62 45 for the country where the amenity is,
• phone:BE=+32 57 53 62 45 and phone:FR=+33 6 12654478 for different national phone numbers. Note that when using country codes, the convention is to make it uppercase, so it is not confused with a language code (but some mappers use lowercase instead).

Also some amenities have a local phone number which can only be used domestically not cannot be called internationally (notably for toll free phone numbers, or abbreviated phone numbers). For international calls, they publish another phone number. For example:

• phone:FR=0 800 123 456 for standard toll free call only from France where the amenity is (note that there's NO "+" sign, it is NOT in international format),
• phone=+33 1 23 45 67 89 when calling from any other country (note that it is not always possible to use it for domestic calls, or the toll free rate will not apply: users have to use the national number instead, they will most often be instructed by an automated vocal system: the most selective applicable key should be used; this means that OSM user agents should present the list of possible phone numbers, with their restrictions encoded in the subkey, to allow users to select which phone number to call, even if these agents preselect an applicable one).

Applications / Web services that display or dial the number from OSM

• Offmaps (iPhone): Displays and dials the phone number in the app's downloadable City Guides.
• OsmAnd: Displays and dials the phone number of all types of indexed POI.
• Maps.Me: Displays and dials the phone number of all types of indexed POI.
• Galileo Offline Maps: Displays and dials the phone number of all types of indexed POI.

See also

• Proposed features/Phone - A proposal for this tag, which has been rejected but then approved.
• List of country calling codes on Wikipedia
• Prefix code on Wikipedia
• Tag:amenity=telephone public telephone, phone box

Voting

The proposal "Deprecating 'contact:phone' in favor of 'phone' tag" has been rejected by community members with 61 oppose votes, 46 approve votes and one comment. 107 people voted in total.

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 45 votes for, 61 votes against and 1 abstention.

The 'contact' prefix is more schematic.

• I oppose this proposal. See contact:phone simply becomes phone then we should adapt all tags dedicated to contacts. Also, contact: allow a better cataloging of this kind of tag --EneaSuper (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Without evidence that phone/contact:phone is intrinsically different from other contact tags, discussing it on its own makes tagging less orthogonal, which is bad both for mappers and users. --Andrew (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I am large fan of the contact:=* schema. I think that what the contact scheme offers is much more adaptable, more orthogonal, and easier to understand than what would be approved by this proposal. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I'm not convinced it is terrible to have both contact:phone and phone. I'm not convinced that they are used entirely interchangeably and that there are no subtle nuances. Even if I were convinced we had to standardize on one, I'm not convinced that phone is preferable (or that contact:phone is preferable). Better arguments would be required to convince me both that we have to deprecate one of them and that contact:phone is the one we should deprecate. --Brian de Ford (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Consistent and logical tagging is more important than use, phone has only grown more in use due to being favoured by editors. I am not against the idea of depreciating one of them, but I feel like the other way round would be much better in the long term. --Doublah (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I believe that the contact:=* schema is better than having multiple top-level tags for contact information. Deprecating 'contact:phone' in favor of 'phone' while keeping most other contact information under the contact:* namespace unnecessarily complicates tagging. If either should be deprecated, it should be 'phone'. --Blendergeek (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.. (Although i'd have preferred to deprecate the whole 'contact:' scheme.) --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I find the contact:* scheme better. It's more easy for data users to collect all tags starting with contact: --S8evq (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I generally do not like tag groups that start with the same sillables, because they make autocompletion work worse (usability reasons). I do not take issue that some "contact:"-tags may make sense while others (phone and particularly website) less so. For "phone" vs. "contact:phone" the situation seems clear (despite the nay-sayers above), in particular, when speaking about eventual nuances in meaning, every "contact:phone" could be represented by "phone", while the contrary, every phone could mean "contact:phone", is likely not true (looking at nuances in meaning), i.e. if you are against deprecation of "contact:phone" you likely will have to live with "phone" nonetheless. --Dieterdreist (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I know it may seem odd to say it like this but the way I see it, judging by the amount each is used, "phone" won and "contact:phone" lost, and we've had plenty of time for the mappers to decide. Especially in the case of phone numbers, contact:* seems to be a tautology (what else would you use a phone number for besides contacting the business or person it's listed for?). It may make more sense to have a specific separate "contact:website" if the only way to send an email to a business is via a web form. I've always found it silly that JOSM has presets for two different sets of keys for the same thing, and would like to see one disappear (ideally the contact:* ones). --Skquinn (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. —seav (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cg909 (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Note that only a tiny fraction of OpenStreetMap contributors are active in the wiki and mailing lists and thus take part in the Proposals process, most OpenStreetMappers vote with their feet. I, too, used to use contact:phone. But according to taghistory and taginfo, phone simply clearly won with over 3 times the usage of contact:phone. To deprecate contact:phone should only be the logical consequence of documenting how the vast majority of the community decided which tag to use. --Westnordost (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. violates single subject rule, phone number formatting etc. needs to be discussed separately (not to mention that there is in general no need to "deprecate" tags in OSM) --SimonPoole (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If this were a new tag, it would be normally to propose how the wiki page should look, so I don't think that's a reasonable objection. Also, the changes are to the formatting of the wiki page, but do not change any of the basics about how the tag should be used. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. I support using just phone=* and the similar simple tags, and deprecating contact:phone=* (as well as the other tags that use the unnecessary contact:* prefix). I don't really think this vote is necessary, because mappers have clearly chosen to use use phone=* rather than contact:phone=* --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Bobwz (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. contact:* seems a useful way to group methods for data consumers --Rskedgell (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The contact scheme is a useful namespace for collecting methods through which a user might contact a business or other entity. "Phone" is too general, and could be mistaken as a carrier for telephone-related information other than the phone number itself. --partytax 16:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

your reasoning seems to indicate you have been mistaken, because the question is not whether to deprecate "phone" or "contact:phone", it is whether to keep both, "phone" and "contact:phone" (vote no) or recommend only "phone" and deprecate "contact:phone" (vote yes). --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand the nature of this proposal, and that a 'no' vote is not a vote for the deprecation of 'phone' in favor of 'contact:phone.' People cast votes for all sorts of reasons, and, given an area to comment, I spelled out that I am voting 'no' because I quite like the 'contact:phone' scheme and would not like it to be deprecated. In so commenting, I happened to draw a contrast with the 'phone' scheme, which I do not prefer, but am under no illusion that my 'no' vote has power to deprecate the 'phone' scheme. That action would require another proposal, which I have no desire to write. --partytax 16:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Waldhans (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. phone=* is an historical tag, contact:* a much more detailed schema that should be prefered. --Cquest (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. for the same reasons as Andrew and Brian de Ford --Mueschel (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. i'm friend of new scheme contact see also comparison page Contact:website_/_website_/_url. If you turn the proposal to deprecating the old phone and only use the new contact:phone i would vote "yes". By the way, i would appreciate to homogenize the formats ((ITU-T E.164) found on phone vs. [Nr. E.123 Ziffer 2.5 (PDF-Datei)] found on Template:DE) in the wiki before.--MalgiK (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. for the same reasons as Rskedgell and MalgiK My opionion contact:* is a much more detailed schema that should be prefered --Thetornado76 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Bubix (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer much more the contact:* schema --Musuruan (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --NonnEmilia (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --corfede (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Giardia (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Canfe (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Simone_girardelli (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Jrachi (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Francians (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I regard the contact scheme as a useful namespace and do not see a reason to pick one single item and deprecate it. I do agree though that having two keys for one item in the real world is not desireable. --Highflyer74 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Gpstracks.it (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- I am against deprecating a widely used tagging --voschix (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I support deprecating contact:phone but this proposal has far more than this Also, I support "according to taghistory and taginfo, phone simply clearly won with over 3 times the usage of contact:phone. To deprecate contact:phone should only be the logical consequence of documenting how the vast majority of the community decided which tag to use." --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Lucadelu (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Phone is more popular, contact:phone doesn't make sense (in some cases), I'd say YES, because phone= is more used and preffered anyways. --Empers (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I don't like having two tags for the same information and phone=* is more used. --Doktorpixel14 (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I dislike the premise that data should be homogenised to the minimum possible number of tags. There may be little difference between the tags, but any difference inferred by anyone is precious and should not be lost Chillly (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The contact scheme has major advantages over using top level keys for everything. E.g. one can just filter for tags of the scheme contact:*=* and list them with key and value in a table without knowledge about the meaning of it. --CamelCaseNick (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. In my opinion the contact:*=*-prefix allows more flexibility and provides a clearer overview of present tags when alphabetically sorted. --Nw520 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I find the new "scheme" contact: * better, as there is much more scope to produce new subkeys. In addition, you keep as a mapper the overview when editing. --Martin minheim (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- I am against deprecating a widely used tagging User 5359 (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer the use of contact-schema. The key-subkey-schema of contact is a much more detailled and flexible schema. The 3 times more usage of phone depends on the widely use of iD-Editor, which not implemented the contact-schema. Phone/fax/email-schema is "oldschool", nowadays you have much more contact-possibilities, like facebook, instagram, snapchat, youtube etc. contact:*=*-prefix allows much more flexibility and provides a clearer overview of present tags when alphabetically sorted. In my regional mapping area the use of contact:-schema is more common for POIs than the "old"-phone-Tagging. From my regional perspective it would be more useful to deprecate phone-Tagging! --TheBlackMan (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. contact: prefix bundels all forms of communication. Modern communication is diverse and fast changing. Using contact:keeps every form of it neatly together when working with the data (as an editor and as a data user. Using contact: will help data users find new forms of communication they might wanna support in their application.

The only reason concact is so much more widely used, is that input masks of ID and some other editors still use the scheme (that was created earlier) without the prefix. --Hedaja (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --ilrobi (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Thomas8122 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I really like the contact: prefix, cause it bundles together, as of right now, a rather messy category of tags. --Sssandum (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Alexander-II (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. contact:* is good --FreeExec (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --P3tr0viCh (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Juminet (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Full scheme contact:* is much better than out of any scheme tag --Smollett (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. While it's not ideal to haver two tags the exact same, I believe the contact:*=* namespace makes sense. I would vote to deprecate phone and favour contact:phone. --CjMalone (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --XnL (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --PG7 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Would rather this proposal was the other way around as contact: namespace is more logical. I would also note that driving change based on usage is a trap OSM keeps falling into - obviously the scheme which came first has wider usage unless a formal deprecation and replacement process has taken place. Imagine if we still used floppy disks because more existed than CDs at one point in time. --TheEditor101 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This will be confusing. Organizations and individuals associated with those organizations are not delineated as they would be now. Merging the tags would put individuals at risk of being unknowingly listed and contacted instead of the official organization due to a simple formatting issue. --Unicorn Ostrich (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Makes no sense --Reino Baptista (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. phone should be deprecated. contact:phone should be extended with country code namespaces and comments e.g. contact:phone:FR=+33 6 12654478 (Emergency only) --Mini-me (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. contact prefix is absolutely anti-osm. We don't have highway:lanes and highway:surface, why should we add an arbitrary prefix to other keys? --Zverik (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I'm at a loss as to why contact:phone is targeted specifically, and how they can't co-exist. --Kovposch (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think, that the contact:* scheme is better and more clear, as it lists all contact possibilities in one place --Hugi99 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. contact:*=* feels so much cleaner than phone=*, website=*, etc. While it'd be nice to only have one of the two, this certainly isn't the one I want. --Kylie J. McClain (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I prefer phone=* over contact:phone. But more important to me is to have only one tagging scheme. So reverse the proposal and it'll still be a "yes" from me. --Wulf4096 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Depricating contact:phone while staying with all the other contact: keys doesn't make sense to me. Nevertheless I prefer contact:phone over phone. --Robert46798 (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I'd like to approve national/local phone numbers, and to deprecate phone=*, not contact:phone --Batyrmastyr (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. In my opinion, phone=* should be deprecated instead. The contact:* scheme is much cleaner and should be the preferred tagging scheme for contact information. --Jotam (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The contact:*=* schema helps to group the attributes and is established with the other contact types. It's true, phone=* is more common, but contact:phone also has a common use, so any software that uses OpenStreetMap data should be able to handle both taggings. --CMartin (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. As others already stated I also prefer phone=* over contact:phone. One well established tagging scheme is better than two half way. --robybully (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I prefer the simplicity of phone, makes autocompletion in tools easier. --Ibanez (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --geozeisig (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Thanks for this proposal: it's important to have a unique tagging scheme, but I think contact:* is better. Singing-Poppy (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Namespaces are good, so we should keep them where we have them. --Mstriewe (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I also think it's not good to have two tags for the same thing, but this is not the right way to go. It needs a voting which tagging scheme should be supported and which one should be deprecated for all contact options. Personally, I prefer the contact:* scheme as namespaces are well established (addr:*,payment:*,...), it groups similar tags in the editor, and is easy to understand especially when it comes to various unknown contact options e.g. social media services. Numbers do say nothing here, as many editors including iD have never implemented the more modern namespace scheme. --Mapper999 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think, that the NameSpace contact:* scheme is better. NameSpace are great. --Eisenspleiszer (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --JIDB (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. If "It's bad to have two keys for the exact same purpose in use" I would be in favor for the contact:* namespace which allows a more differentiated recording of contact data --geow (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer the contact:* schema --Soldier Boy (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Should be the other way round. --Reclus (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Евреи (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Faizal (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Druzhba (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. In favor of one, single scheme.--Kundera (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Constantino (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Though I respect the historical background of the "phone" tag, I prefer "contact:" schema because nowadays telephone is getting less important and regarded as just one of various contact methods. --Maripogoda (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I tried to write an explanation for why I'm voting yes, but my message got blocked as harmful "phone spam 2." I guess I can't mention "phone" on a vote about a "phone" tag. Alright then. To think I got away with all that other nasty stuff before without anyone or anything flagging me, but now it's all "oh no, don't use the word "phone" in a message Adamant1. Go figure.

You got blocked by an automated filter aimed at spam for special phone numbers. Sorry for that, sometimes the regular expressions give false positives. The filter does NOT block the word "phone" though. --Lyx (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I like contact: scheme very much. It's convenient to use it in editor for objects with big amount of tags --literan (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I don't think these 2 keys serve the same purpose. For example, in many small town governments you have town offices with land lines at the office location, but since the office is not staffed every day they leave contact numbers so you can reach the town officer on their cell or home phone if they are not in the office. If this is not how these tags are being used then it would be better to document the contact key as a way of reaching someone outside the office--Rassilon (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I'd rather deprecate phone=* in favor of proper namespacing --jomo (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. this key already widespread --GiantOSM (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Bagage (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Rumburak (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fasse (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• duplicate --geozeisig (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Pepilepioux (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer "contact:" schema with various contact methods : eg contact:email ... --leni (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I also prefer schema contact: --Reinhard12 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Nacktiv (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fabi2 (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I also prefer namespaces like "contact:". Tags are more structured with them. --Hauke-stieler (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --R2d (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer to have all the contact keys under the same prefix. It doesn't seem good to me to keep out phone (and also fax, email, website). At this point, since contact:phone exists and has a certain popularity, trying to discourage it makes the situation even worse. --sorcrosc (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think to gather the tags with a prefix as contact: is more flexible and allows to gather the information that allows to contact a company or a person --rodrigo (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I am not convinced by given arguments. In fact there is only one - usage. That is not enough for me. --Gorn (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer contact:* schema because phone is the same logical property of amenity as email or website or telegram so it should be groupped --Bigopenmac (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. With a variety of contact methods today grouping said methods within the contact: namespaces makes handling new methods more easily. It's practical. Deprecation of phone (etc) would be more pogressive. --kartonage (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

VOTING IS CLOSED