Proposed features/Top up
|Status:||Voting (under way)|
|Definition:||Whether a bar/store/... sells top-ups for prepaid services|
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
- credit recharge for prepaid credit cards or other stored value cards
This neglects some top-ups, like public transport credit. Also, in the real world top-ups can be sold in other shops, such as:
I propose to introduce these tags to specify whether a store sells top-ups:
|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.|
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.
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.
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
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
The actual scheme solves all these problems
- amenity=* or shop=*
- prepaid_top_up:brand=‹brand› (optional)
- prepaid_top_up:network=‹network› (optional)
Nodes and areas.
- prepaid_top_up=* will be added as a possible combination of amenity=* and shop=*
- vending=telephone_vouchers will imply prepaid_top_up=mobile_phone.
- 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
Please comment on the discussion page.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)