Proposal:Top up
| Top up | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Abandoned (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Danysan, pangoSE (pangoSE adopted from Danysan 2019-05-06) |
| Applies to: |  , 
|
| Definition: | Whether a bar/store/... sells top-ups for prepaid services |
| Draft started: | 2018-12-25 |
| RFC start: | 2019-05-08 (fifth revision) |
Proposal
See fifth revision below.
Rationale
If you are unfamiliar with the concept of prepaid services you can check out this Wikipedia page.
With "top-up" I refer to a recharge for the credit of a prepaid service. This includes:
- paperless over-the-air credit top up for prepaid mobile phone plans
- prepaid mobile top up cards
- mobile phone top up voucher
- public transport credit recharge
Right now in OpenStreetMap only vending machines can sell mobile phone vouchers (amenity=vending_machine + vending=telephone_vouchers).
This neglects some top-ups, like public transport credit. Also, in the real world top-ups can be sold in other shops, such as amenity=bar, amenity=payment_terminal, shop=mobile_phone, shop=convenience, shop=tobacco and shop=kiosk.
This proposal would solve this problem.
Historic notes
First revision
Doing some research for this proposal I found a 2015 discussion in the Tagging mailing list that asked how to tag recharge point for public transportation credit and proposed the key recharge=*, but it seems that it did not have much success.
top_up=* has never been discussed on the wiki or the Tagging mailing list but it looks like it's already used, mainly in the Birmingham area for the Swift card.
paypoint=* has also never been discussed but it looks like it's already used to specify that the aforementioned PayPoint network is present in a shop. The same holds true for pay_point=*.
A 2018 discussion in the Talk-it mailing list on how to map shops that sell mobile phone credit recharges moved me to create this proposal.
Originally this proposal proposed to formalize the key top_up=* to specify whether top-ups are sold in a shop. It would be possible to specify which brand/carrier vouchers are sold with the key brand=*. However this would create a conflict because brand=* is already used in the shops to specify their main brand.
Second revision
A second revision of this proposal proposed the tags top_up:<type>[:<brand>]=yes/no:
- top_up:phone=yes;no -> This shop sells telephone recharge vouchers or over-the-air credit top-up
- top_up:transport=yes;no -> This shop sells public transport card top-up
- top_up:credit_card=yes;no -> This shop sells credit card top up
- top_up:‹other type›=yes;no
- top_up:phone:‹brand›=yes;no
- top_up:transport:‹brand›=yes;no
- top_up:credit_card:‹brand›=yes;no
This approach however posed some problems:
- Some networks (like PayPoint) allow top-up more than one service (mobile phone, public transport, ...)
- The scheme has a over-namespacing problem because both the second and the third subkeys could be values
- The name "top_up" can be confused with drink refill and is unclear for people of countries where prepaid services are not widespread
- Brand names are likely to use characters such as upper-case letters or non-ASCII characters that should be avoided in keys where possible
Third revision
So a third scheme was proposed to solve these problems:
| tag | Meaning |
|---|---|
| prepaid_top_up=yes | Top ups are sold here |
| prepaid_top_up=‹type› | <type> can be mobile_phone, public_transport, energy, credit cards, ... . Top ups for this type of service are sold here. |
| prepaid_top_up=no | Top ups are not sold here. |
| prepaid_top_up:brand=‹brand› | <brand> is the name of a brand. Top ups for this brand are sold here. |
| prepaid_top_up:network=‹network› | <network> is the name of a payment services network. Top ups through this network are sold here. Note that a payment services network is not a payment network (as in payment=*). It's a network that allows to pay multiple services (including top ups) in the same place. An example is PayPoint. |
This scheme was put to voting from 2019-01-09 to 2019-01-29 and was rejected. You can see the argumentations for the rejection below. Most of them complained about the top up brand tagging (some lamented that it's a detail too perishable, others wanted brands to be tagged with namespaces even though I explained before why this is not possible, others lamented that you cant specify which brands offers which top up type).
Fourth revision
The fourth revision started voting on 2019-01-29. It removes prepaid_top_up:brand=* and prepaid_top_up:network=* because it's a detail too perishable. It also moves from prepaid_top_up=* with semicolon-separated values to different tags following the recommendation in Semi-colon_value_separator#When_NOT_to_use.
| tag | Meaning |
|---|---|
| mobile_top_up=yes | Top ups for mobile phones are sold here. |
| public_transport_top_up=yes | Top ups for public transport cards are sold here. |
| energy_top_up=yes | Top ups for energy companies credit are sold here. |
| prepaid_card_top_up=yes | Top ups for prepaid cards are sold here. |
Fifth revision
| tag | Meaning |
|---|---|
| prepaid_top_up:energy=yes | Top ups for energy companies credit are sold here. |
| prepaid_top_up:gaming=yes | Top ups for games (used in Japan). |
| prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes | Top ups for mobile phones are sold here. |
| prepaid_top_up:public_transport=yes | Top ups for public transport cards are sold here. |
This avoids the semi-colons and spreading similar keys. This makes it easy to add a new one e.g. "prepaid_top_up:ski_lift=yes". I removed the "prepaid card" row because it did not make any sense to me and neither did the wiki link in its description. Regarding namespaces I think none of the arguments of over-namespacing apply to this case.--PangoSE (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Examples
| Example | Tags |
|---|---|
| shop=* + prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes | |
| amenity=bar + prepaid_top_up:public_transport=yes | |
 Public transport card top up |
amenity=vending_machine + vending=public_transport_tickets + prepaid_top_up:public_transport=yes |
.jpg) Public transport card top up |
shop=* + prepaid_top_up:public_transport=yes |
 Payment network that allows to top-up phone and energy credit |
shop=* + prepaid_top_up:public_transport=yes + prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes + prepaid_top_up:energy=yes |
Tagging
- amenity=* or shop=*
- prepaid_top_up:energy=yes
- prepaid_top_up:gaming=yes
- prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes
- prepaid_top_up:public_transport=yes
Applies to
Nodes and areas.
Features/Pages affected
- prepaid_top_up tags will be added as a possible combination of amenity=* and shop=*
- vending=telephone_vouchers will imply prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes.
External discussions
- 2015 discussion on Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-October/thread.html#27119
- 2018 discussion on Talk-it mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2018-December/thread.html#65358
- Proposal RFC on Tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-December/thread.html#41623
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
First voting
Voting from 2019-01-09 to 2019-01-29 for the third revision (prepaid_top_up=*+prepaid_top_up:brand=*+prepaid_top_up:network=*).
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 5 votes for, 6 votes against and 2 abstentions.
I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. It is unclear to me how one is supposed to tag place selling multiple top ups with separate purposes - for example prepaid for mobile phones of brand A and separate unrelated prepaid for public transport from unrelated brand and network --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- If a shop sells top ups for mobile phones of brand A and top ups for public transport of brand B you would use shop=*+prepaid_top_up=mobile_phone;public_transport+prepaid_top_up:brand=A;B -Danysan (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I actually like the proposal, but i think it would have been simpler to tag payment service network top-ups (like PayPoint) with
prepaid_top_up:brand=<payment service network>as the payment service is also brand. –SelfishSeahorse (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 
I oppose this proposal. The proposal goes to a level of detail that induces to nano-mapping, producing large quantities of very perishable data. I would at least explicitly discourage the "brand" level-of-detail --voschix (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AgusQui (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jmdocile (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Santamariense (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
prepaid_top_up:brand=‹brand›
- I oppose this proposal. I would like to oppose only to the insane prepaid_top_up:brand=A;B. As brands get renamed, prepaid_top_up:brand:A=yes, prepaid_top_up:brand:A=yes would be more efficient, also easier to use (you want to top up on brand B you can select object having prepaid_top_up:brand:B=yes, you don't have to create a regular expression for parsing the brands key. I also have questions about the rational of separating networks and brands, IMHO SelfishSeahorse is right. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I dislike any kind of colon tags --Aeonesa (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think adding brand is nonsense. Sometimes this kind of places and machines are used to pay many other stuff. What you can pay is usually very local, including local utilities. Listing everything in every place seems absurd to me, as the list is constantly changing. --Cserpell (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Adding the brand is too much perishable detail. --Pathmapper (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think it should be something generic and not favor a brand, in other countries you also find sales of minutes via cell phone and similar that are not of the brand that is spoken of.
Second voting
Voting from 2019-01-29 for the fourth revision (mobile_top_up=*+public_transport_top_up=*+energy_top_up=*+prepaid_card_top_up=*).
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 4 votes for and 4 votes against.
The community raised some issues. See the follow-up draft proposal below.
- I oppose this proposal. I think it should be something generic and not favor a brand, in other countries you also find sales of minutes via cell phone and similar that are not of the brand that is spoken of.
- I oppose this proposal. Why is it necessary to introduce several top-level keys for such a minor feature? The second proposal, using top_up:mobile, top_up:transport and so on was so much better. Also, the statement about semicolon-separated values you linked is clearly not the opinion of all mappers. Especially for minor sub-features like this it makes a lot of sense to combine them in one tag. Please allow for some discussion and don't jump from one voting to the next. --Mueschel (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I see no problems with this proposals. --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --DaveFX (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Same reason as Mueschel. In my opinion, it'd be quite a PITA having dozens of tags for similar concepts spread all over the alphabetically sorted key-value list. I'd prefer a common namespace and wouldn't mind semicolon-separated values. --Nw520 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I would be for the second proposal, maybe with "top_up:" replaced by "prepaid_top_up:". From the database point of view it seems to make most sense. Rmikke (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Guillemmal (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)