facebook or contact:facebook?
It's written that both would have the same meaning but facebook=* is an official page where contact:facebook=* is an official way of contacting. It is not the same. Let's take a shop=bakery, they may have an official FB page but if you want to get a lot of bread tomorrow, it's safe to come and ask, to call and ask. Using FB would mean taking some risks depending on the bakery. --Nospam2005 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- On the other hand, what use is adding a website they don't use? Arlo James Barnes (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's just completely different. Having a website to present or to communicate is 2 different things. In a highway you understand the difference and the need of oneway=yes and the default oneway=no. Here it's the same. BTW, in internet names, you have A records and MX records. If you consider that all FB websites are not only for publishing information but also used as contact channel, feel free to make a deprecation proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Should contact:facebook=profile be encouraged over contact:facebook=url
Facebook has 3 formatter URLs (two are FB services, one is just for getting avatars). See the tag2link project (it generates a generic json for tags that should be links). From https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/21794#comment:3 , said project has the following formatter urls:
By encouraging the profile name over the URL, other software can more easily link to FB Messenger as well as Facebook.
- Deprecate or discourage `contact:facebook=url`
- Encourage `contact:facebook=profile`
- Sounds good to me. It was always odd to me that it could be either; maybe that was meant to accommodate people who just wanted to be able to copy and paste without fussing with the string, but the wiki page as it stands already constrains the URL form to HTTPS, no tracking tokens, etc. And updating the recommendation to just the bare identifier will allow editors like JOSM and iD to help autotrim values. Arlo James Barnes (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- +1, but to formalize as proposal. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've only been using URLs with this key because taginfo was showing URLs as the most common values; I didn't realize there was even the option for something cleaner and more durable. (After all, what if Facebook changes the URL format at some point?) iD doesn't have a field for this key yet, but autotrimming the value would be trivial. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)