Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GE according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FR according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FL according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-DR according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FL according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-FR according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GE according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-GR according to the international notation of E.123

Changeset comment correction: Format valid phone number related values in the ISO3166-2 region of NL-LI according to the international notation of E.123

Hi there, thanks for your comment.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that the phone numbers aren't yet formatted according to the international notation of E.123.

My intention is to fix all invalid (non-dialable) phone numbers today along with doing some other clean ups in NL, and then to properly format the numbers all in one go in the end.

Hi, René

There was an issue where I thought that DIN 5008 and E.123 were equivalent, but apparently not.

See the following changeset comments:
osm.org/changeset/131441346
osm.org/changeset/131441184

Hi Rainer, yes I was aware of the osm.wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct, but was not explicitly aware of the fact that DIN 5008 was different from the rest of most of the world (E.123).

The way of how Key:phone page was formulated gives the impression that E.123 and DIN-5008 were interchangeable, and it wasn't until I saw (dug up) this page osm.wiki/Talk:Key:contact:*#Internal_phone_extension_number that I realised that there was a minor difference.

The edits I applied was simply formatted the phone numbers according to E.123, and left out invalid (simply just wrong) phone numbers untouched. No 'real' damage was done to the data, they are all still reachable to the same people before the edit.

Given the difference of going from DIN 5008 to E.123 is one way only (because of the removal of '-' when it comes to DiD), I could revert my changes later today if you would like that?

Hi all, I'm using Google's open sourced library (https://github.com/google/libphonenumber) used by Android's contacts etc. to parse, validate, and format a phone number.

@Map-Peter Could you elaborate the issue a bit further for the node that you've mentioned? Every (mobile) phone number has a prefix, '176' in the case of '+49 17687940097'. The formatted '+49 176 87940097' seems correct to me according to DE:Key:contact:* .

Take a look at this as well: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorwahl_01_(Deutschland)

Great, thanks!

But those extension numbers aren't actually (technically correct) extension codes right? In the sense that a proper extension system would require you to first dial the landline number, wait for connection, then dial the extension code.

Rather the Bremen government have just arbitrarily reserved all phone numbers with the pattern '+49 421 361xxxxx' for governmental use only.

I've just tried dialing +49 421 361 and it wouldn't go through

Hi there, before I make further comments, could you confirm if I understood this correctly? <Durchwahl> would be the equivalent to English's phone number extension correct? (Eg. a company's landline with extensions to different people/extension)

Morning Euskirchener, thanks for your feedback!

I've went through the German's regulation on phone numbers, and this is indeed a caveat situation. German mobile numbers can have 3 or 4 digit prefix number (without the turntable 0). For example, the prefix could be 15xx, 16x, and or 17x.

If you look carefully at section 015 of the wikipedia page you've sent me, you'll see that it has being explained over there.

Please let me know if you have any other concern! ;)

Using Google's phone numbers package for python*

You can check out change set 121976711 as an example

Hi Herrieman,

Thanks for the FYI!

Yes, I am aware of the turnkable 0s in the area codes. I left it in because I will be running a script in a while that would be sanitizing all POI's phone numbers in one go (adding the country code, truncating the leading 0s, validating the phone numbers etc.).

This is actually how I managed to pin point all of the invalid phone numbers in the first place. ;)

Understood, so just for my future reference, a POI node (say a restaurant) and an address node should be just merged into one node then?

I suspect that the data source does not have the up-to-date date in regards to Hoogstraat. I can confirm that the street name is Hoogstraatje