This proposal is to copy the Contact Details elements from contact:*=*, add ordering:sms=*, and add contact:sms=*. After finding a restaurant that had an SMS-only ordering phone, I found there was no way to tag either ordering or SMS-only phone numbers.
See proposal page on the wiki, and discussion page on the wiki
Taking the comments from the discussion with Kovposch, I revamped the proposal from using "ordering=" tags to adding contact:=-like sub-tags to takeaway:=, delivery:=, and drive-thru:=* as well as adding ordering:sms=, and contact:sms= to indicate the capabilities of each of those phone numbers.
I have added voting to this proposal, ending July 12, 2024 0:00 UT.
Due to a typo, “drive-thru” should have been “drive_through”. I made the changes, incorporated comments from voting into the discussion page, and am resubmitting the proposal RFQ.
Thanks! With this tagging scheme, is there a way to tag that a restaurant has a phone number 123 but accepts orders only through a website orderfood.com/restaurant123? (Which might be different from their main website example.com)
I can only put takeaway:website=https://orderfood.com/restaurant123 or takeaway:website=only but not both.
See also Additional fast food collection point (takeaway only and it can only be ordered by QR code)
I would think that takeaway:website=https://orderfood.com/restaurant123 and contact:phone=123 would accomplish this in the new schema. I hadn’t considered takeaway:website=only and don’t think it’s recommended. According to its taginfo, takeaway:website is currently used 6 times, and always with a URL.
Now that this round of comments concluded, I’ve officially announced voting on this proposal on July 15, 2024.
How about takeaway:phone = none? That puts the information about ordering via phone into the proper tag and doesn’t overload other contact tags.
How about
takeaway:phone = none? That puts the information about ordering via phone into the proper tag and doesn’t overload other contact tags.
what if “none” is a telephone number?
How so? If you want to assume a short 4 letter word might be a number, then you have to raise the same question about other cases where we use “none” as a keyword, like maxheight or maxweight.
on the other hand, we don’t use name=none or addr:housenumber=none.
maxweight=none also doesn’t seem something we use, it has a meager 180 uses out of 331000 maxweight | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
None cannot be a phone number, it’s not numbers.
None cannot be a phone number, it’s not numbers.
maxspeed=walk is also not a number, or RO:urban, while „555-BARN“ is apparently a phonenumber. It’s called vanity numbers.
I’m perfectly ok with adding these specifics IF they are applicable, but the absence of the tag should be sufficient when there is no such number, a negative confirmation would rather clutter things more than it would be helpful to have a confirmation that at some time they really did not have it.
Just tagging that there is no number for ordering is not useful.
But in the specific case mentioned it does add some information - to explicitly state that there is a phone number you can call, but not in case of an order.
Right, in these cases we even have a dedicated tag for their absence - noname=yes and nohousenumber= yes. But this would be definitely too much for minor details like ordering phone numbers.
I’m not sure if this is what mueschel is getting at, but the original proposal stemmed from a restaurant with an SMS-only phone number. Ironically, sms=yes|no|only is in partial use, to indicate whether SMS messages can be used. So to say phone=no would kind of make sense to mean that a phone number is not for voice calls.
In the end, I think it made more sense to formalize sms=number instead.
Voting has now ended and the proposal was approved.