Conversation
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
|
🍱 Your pull request preview is ready Please use this preview to check your changes. Ideally use the test documentation template and document your test results by commenting on the PR. This will speed up the review process for everyone. FYI, once this PR is merged, you can use the iD Editor Preview to test your changes in interaction with all other changes. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
it looks so to me! Though I have not done much with payment tagging, so I will not help much with PR review itself |
matkoniecz
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
still not an expert, but it looks fine?
is documented, used, noone seems protesting?
but not strongly confident and I may wish i have not approved this
|
Research notes: The key is used ~1.300 times and as such would have the lowest number of all the options. {
"result": [
{
"payment_key": "payment:account_cards",
"usage_count": 4530
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:alipay",
"usage_count": 10534
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:american_express",
"usage_count": 43963
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:app",
"usage_count": 46691
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:apple_pay",
"usage_count": 23730
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:bancomat",
"usage_count": 4011
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:blik",
"usage_count": 2829
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:cards",
"usage_count": 66924
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:cash",
"usage_count": 393394
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:cheque",
"usage_count": 12813
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:clipper",
"usage_count": 1343
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:coins",
"usage_count": 122793
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:contactless",
"usage_count": 79648
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:credit_cards",
"usage_count": 290091
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:cryptocurrencies",
"usage_count": 11385
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:debit_cards",
"usage_count": 239492
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:diners_club",
"usage_count": 20066
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:discover_card",
"usage_count": 23931
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:dkv",
"usage_count": 4435
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:electronic_purses",
"usage_count": 17014
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:ep_easycard",
"usage_count": 15630
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:ep_geldkarte",
"usage_count": 4505
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:ep_ipass",
"usage_count": 15417
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:girocard",
"usage_count": 16043
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:google_pay",
"usage_count": 20976
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:jcb",
"usage_count": 21108
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:maestro",
"usage_count": 52055
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:mastercard",
"usage_count": 157956
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:mastercard_contactless",
"usage_count": 9067
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:notes",
"usage_count": 52862
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:paypal",
"usage_count": 4173
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:prepaid_ticket",
"usage_count": 1997
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:telephone_cards",
"usage_count": 11515
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:unionpay",
"usage_count": 15866
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:upi",
"usage_count": 1334
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:uta",
"usage_count": 4052
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:visa",
"usage_count": 164312
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:visa_debit",
"usage_count": 16915
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:visa_electron",
"usage_count": 22514
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:v_pay",
"usage_count": 6013
},
{
"payment_key": "payment:wechat",
"usage_count": 9902
}
],
"metadata": {
"generator": "Postpass API 0.2",
"timestamp": "2025-11-16T07:16:42Z"
}
}%Query: |
| "visa_electron": "Visa Electron", | ||
| "wechat": "WeChat Pay" | ||
| "wechat": "WeChat Pay", | ||
| "upi": "UPI" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am tempted to say that it should be different key than upi - to reduce risk of key collision in future. But it is too late for that I guess.
Though maybe label should be longer than UPI? if that is just "UPI" it does not add much of context
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Regarding the label - I did think of this but there already seem to be a few similarly named like DKV, JCB, UTA so I opted to keep it as just UPI. The Info-i for those doesn't even say anything lol, at least I've added the details for UPI.
Should I change it to "UPI (Unified Payments Interface)"? That might be a bit wordy though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the longer name is better here.
Did you see the docs on how to handle the info-I?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed the label now. I meant earlier I had added already added the details for Info-i 🙂
do we have somewhere in docs at least list of PRs rejected in past for too lower tag use? AFAIK not. And https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md is not even mentioning that changes that add support for rarely used tags are more likely to be rejected. |
It is documented at https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/blob/main/GUIDELINES.md#general-guidelines but we don't have numbers there which I think is right given the various reasons that we take into account... For this case I think cam merge now or wait a few month... - both fine. |
I would prefer the former :D Tbh its usage is very popular but just undermapped I suppose |



Description, Motivation & Context
Makes UPI an easily selectable option under Payment Types. UPI is used in India for contactless payments by scanning QR codes has usage of over hundreds of million transactions per day.
Related issues
NA
Links and data
Relevant OSM Wiki links:
New Wiki data item created: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q23065 (btw this part is seriously under-documented IMO)
UPI already document in Wiki under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment:*#National_electronic_payment_systems
Relevant tag usage stats:
Exactly 1000 at time of writing :) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/payment%3Aupi
Checklist and Test-Documentation Template
Read on to get your PR merged faster…
Follow these steps to test your PR yourself and make it a lot easier and faster for maintainers to check and approve it.
This is how it works:
After you submit your PR, the system will create a preview and comment on your PR:
Once the preview is ready, use it to test your changes.
Now copy the snippet below into a new comment and fill out the blanks.
Now your PR is ready to be reviewed.