Proposal:Happycow

The ID of an establishment on the "Happy Cow" vegetarian website
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Danstowell
Tagging:	happycow:id=* Data item
Applies to:	,
Definition:	The ID of an establishment in the Happy Cow community site
Statistics:
Draft started:	2017-02-18
Vote start:	2021-01-31
Vote end:	2021-01-31

Proposal & rationale

The website https://www.happycow.net contains community reviews of vegetarian and vegan food establishments.

Just like existing tags such as fhrs:id=* or wikipedia=*, this tag simply notes an establishment's ID in the Happy Cow database, which then makes it possible for people to cross-reference against the information they have.

How to tag

On the Happy Cow site, the entries each have a numeric ID, which you can see at the end of the URL. For example:

https://www.happycow.net/reviews/brasserie-lola-paris-52172

Copy just the numeric part and use that as the value:

happycow:id=52172

How to use the information

You can link back out to their site just by constructing a simple URL with the ID on the end:

https://www.happycow.net/reviews/52172

See also

• happycow:id current usage according to Taginfo
• diet:vegetarian=*

Feedback on this tag

Please comment by visiting the talk page

Voting

Instructions for voting

• Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
• Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:

To get this output	you type	Description
I approve this proposal.	{{vote|yes}} --~~~~	Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
I oppose this proposal. reason	{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~	Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments	{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~	If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.

• I oppose this proposal. Sorry, first I am sceptical about adding more and more links to review sites to OSM object. There are increasingly more of them, tripadvisor and yelp are just the tip of the iceberg. It becomes an unmaintainable mess. Second, it is unclear how persistent these IDs are, and what happens when the locality changes name, or under the same name a new operator takes over. Third such reference should be in the ref: namespace, not a new primary key for each of those services. The comparison with fhrs:id does not work since that is an official governmental scheme, and it is clear that an old ID is terminated together with a particular business.--Polarbear w (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. What makes this particular review site different from the hundreds of similar services? I don't think OSM should be used as a giant directory of links to various other services. --Mueschel (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. if such data should be added, use the ref=* namespace but I am septic about this kind of id (name+location should to the match or wikidata) Marc marc (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to express a degree of incredulity at this proposal. You can't just put a proposal for a review website up for voting without addressing the credibility of its reviews. Also, no homework regarding community support has been done for this proposal. --501ghost (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This "wat" tag is offensive to someone just trying honestly to contribute. Please don't use it. "no" is fine. --Danstowell (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an appropriate reply to such an inappropriate proposal. --501ghost (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please reconsider. On a separate matter: why would the credibility of the reviews be an issue for OSM? Does that apply e.g. to the credibility of other websites? Could you link to some guidance on this please? --Danstowell (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I will reconsider once the proposal process has been followed properly. I don't think there are parameters for assessing the credibility of reviews on review websites, which is one reason, among others which are also listed in this voting section, why OSM doesn't support tags for this purpose. In my opinion, it should be considered a third party service which could be offered by third party applications that may or may not also use OSM data. ---501ghost (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. As said above, we shouldn't be adding every single site to an element. Adding this info to Wikidata and linking that to the element would work better. Linking sites is only done for large, very well known sites. --GoodClover (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to express a degree of incredulity at this proposal. it is inappropriate to proceed to a vote without a recent RFC period. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This "wat" tag is offensive to someone just trying honestly to contribute. Please don't use it. "no" is fine. --Danstowell (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. and confirm arguments of Polarbear and Mueschel thinking about endless number of different camp site IDs. --Vanagaudi (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)