Proposed features/Jewellery shop

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Jewellery shop
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Math1985
Tagging: shop=jewellery
Applies to:
Definition: A shop that sells rings, necklaces, earrings, watches, etc.
Drafted on: 2016-01-25
RFC start: 2016-01-25
Vote start: 2016-02-08
Vote end: 2016-02-22

Rationale

The main point of this proposal is to stimulate a transition from the American English term shop=jewelry to the British term shop=jewellery.

We currently use British English for almost all OSM tags. Jewellery shops however are typically tagged with the American English variant shop=jewelry (20083 occurrences), and hardly ever with the British English variant shop=jewellery (187 occurrences). Editors and data consumers only support the American variant.

Some mappers have proposed switching to the British English version. If it is not clear whether this really is a good idea. It wouldn't be an easy task, as it would require synchronisation between mappers, editors and data consumers. The gain would be fairly minor and the disadvantages rather large: all data consumers that handle jewellery shops would be required to update their code. On the other hand, maybe it makes sense to try anyway.

If we decide to accept the tag shop=jewellery and mark shop=jewelry as discouraged, we should have at least a good plan. Without plan, nothing will happen, as mappers don't want to use unsupported tags, and data consumers don't want to support unused tags. Of course we can't decide what editors/data consumers should do. However, we could come up with a recommendation, and hope editors/data consumers are willing to follow it.

This proposal therefore proposes the following recommendation, which is supposed to be published on the shop=jewellery wiki page.

Editors

  • The first 6 months after acceptance of the proposal to switch, editors should keep producing the old tag shop=jewelry only. This gives data consumers time to make arrangements to support the new tag.
  • The following 3 months, editors might either produce shop=jewelry or shop=jewellery.
  • After 9 months from acceptance of the proposal, editors should only produce shop=jewellery.

Data consumers

  • Within 6 months after the acceptance of the proposal, data consumers should accept shop=jewellery in addition to shop=jewelry.
  • When usage of shop=jewelry has declined sufficiently, data consumers can stop supporting shop=jewelry. This is not expected within 12 months after acceptance of the proposal, and likely much later.

Data

  • The first 6 months after acceptance of the proposal, the data should remain unchanged.
  • After 6 months, the amount of shop=jewelry tags is expected to decline in favour of shop=jewellery tags. It is hard to predict how long this process will take.

Wiki

  • 6 months after the acceptance of the proposal, shop=jewellery should be marked as recommended tag.
  • 9 months after the acceptance of the proposal, shop=jewelry should be marked as discouraged.

Proposal

A jewellery shop is a shop that sells jewellery, such as rings, necklaces, earrings, and watches.

How to map

Set a node Node or draw the outline Area of the building. Tag it with shop=jewelry and name=*.

Useful combination

Rendering

  • Mapnik Jewellery-16.svg

Photos

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was Rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and 4 abstentions.

Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so rejection.


  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I have no strong opinion myself, but I find it important that this choice is made by the community rather than by renderers or data consumers (or individual mappers). --Math1985 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dieterdreist (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Based on taginfo usage, it is obviously clear that the community has accepted the en-us spelling; forcing the en-uk spelling is a form of cultural imperialism that is, in my opinion, against the spirit of OSM. --Kelerei (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Why bother data consumers with a change that brings no additional value ? --Escada (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gregoryw (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Consistency is good. If British English is used for most tags then I see no reason not to discourage variations from the British English spelling. Similarly to this proposal shop=jewelers, shop=jewlery, and shop=jewerly should also be discouraged. --Peter Mead (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Messpert (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. consistency is important, and the experiences with the suggested timeline could help to figure out a more streamlined propagation of tag changes into applications. --Tordanik 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I want an accurate map. One way of encouraging accuracy is to have accurate and consistent tags. The change is trivial to data consumers and mappers. The replacement of us-en for uk-en gains consistency, conforms with OSM policy and encourages the continued use of uk-en. Warin61 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. consistent tagging is not "cultural imperialism" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The tag is very established and in use by thousands of mappers, even with American spelling. There is only very little benefit in "correcting" this. Does not sound worth the trouble. --Stephankn (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Waldhans (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Peda (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --edvac (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. The potential benefit is quite small, but I like the increase in consistency it would provide. --GeoKitten (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I can't see any benefit in such a change. Iam also very much for consistency in the data, but this will NOT result in more consistency but in LESS, because of two different taggings. One that is very well established and another that is promoted in wiki, just because of a language issue. Who will retag 20.000 objects? Or do you want to make a mechanical edit? 20.000 is a fact that speaks for jewelry, "Editors and data consumers only support the American variant." also speaks for jewelry. This sound more like a nationally centred idea --Hakuch (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. This proposal makes demands on renderers and editors in a way that is un-precedented for tagging proposals. I am not aware of any proposal in the past that actually tried to define time frames in which changes should be made to editors. The Wiki voting process is certainly overstepping its mandate when it tries to implement such rules. Is this proposal constructed to fail - is it really a "let's leave things as they are" proposal? --Frederik Ramm (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No other tag is in us-en, hence a single case? Rather than 'rules' use the words 'guide to implementation'? The word used in the proposal is 'should' which implies a request, if the word used was 'shall' then it would be a demand. Warin61 (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. From my point of view the possible gain in consistency is insufficient to justify the efforts and side effects involved. --geow (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. no benefit to change a widely used tagging --chris66 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. no benefit to change a widely used tagging --wambacher (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I just cite the proposal itself: The gain would be fairly minor and the disadvantages rather large. There would be a lot of wasted time (additionally to the one already used for this proposal and voting) just to add two letters to a word. -- malenki 11:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
the benefit is consistency. If you consider this significant or not is up to you, but "no benefit" doesn't seem appropriate. Having all the tags in British spelling, with the exception of one single tag without no reason other than "it has always been done", is really poor and creates a lot of work and wasted time for all new users. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
as I pointed out, there wont be more consistency but less when we want to change a well supported tag. To keep an existing tag won't create any work, but changing an 20.000 times existing one will do so Hakuch (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@DieterDreist: Pray where did I say "no benefit"? -- malenki 12:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Hundehalter (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. mainly for consistency, if not supported by editors, or editors are not used, it is easier to remember if the naming scheme is consistent --Heinz (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Aighes (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. no benefit to change a widely used tagging --Rogehm (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. too big confusion for too small benefit. Also I don't like the point that we vote for something that should be done in 6 months--Klumbumbus (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. no benefit to change a widely used tagging, nothing better to do ?, end other "retagging first" sub_station for example --BeKri (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. for the reasons given my malenki and others, and on the talk page of the previous proposal. --Fkv (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Piephoh0iuS6aquah5Kolee8chei8iengug9egheemoof5aef2rae2hohCh4Ta5t (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. the proposed change creates more harm than benefits --Lyx (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --User 5359 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. While there are some very valid arguments opposed, I think consistency is more important. Mistakes have been made in the past, thats no reason to continue making them. --Davo (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ogmios (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Rza31 (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. If we plan to have few exceptions to British English, then we should rather eliminate them altogether. If we want to eliminate them, then doing so earlier is better. If we, however, plan to have many exceptions, then we lose consistency, which is bad in the long-term. This proposal is mainly a decision between short-time and long-time goals. I value long-time goals more. --Meillo (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Raupach (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mondschein (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Reneman (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. "It's too difficult to update all the software (editors, converters, renderers etc.) so that it supports new tags" - This argument is false. We shouldn't be afraid to change tags if there is a reason. And a software should be changed shortly. --Edward17 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --J-wills (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It looks like shop=jewelery did not pass proposal procedure, it is de facto value, so it is better to perform procedure. --OverQuantum (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Wowik (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. BE is a ground rule, not to use BE is confusing Geogast (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Markonspbkem (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Atalanttore (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --streckenkundler (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It makes no sense to change any well established without a very strong reason. --Nop (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. It makes no sense to change any well established without a very strong reason. --fx99 (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I approve of this proposal subject to the usual proviso that wiki voting is batshit insane. But it is even more batshit insane to say "the lingua franca of OSM is British English, apart from 'jewelry' which we spell the American way because blargh". I mean, come on. Tagging with meaningful words (rather than some predefined dictionary of numeric values) only works if you can follow the Principle of Least Surprise, and every tag except one being in the same dialect clearly violates PoLS. --Richard (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --czmartin (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ullus (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. There is no gain. --Scai (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Species 21:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. "After 6 months, the amount of shop=jewelry tags is expected to decline in favour of shop=jewellery tags. It is hard to predict how long this process will take." LOL, what is it going to take to speed up these magical data fairies? What a joke. Do you people who propose this stuff do any actual work? --Bhousel (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I see no reason to change what so many users find perfectly normal, especially when the replacement is an antiquated and anachronistic term like jewellery. --AlaskaDave (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Our policy is to use British English spelling, so exceptions will only lead more confusion --Rjw62 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Marczoutendijk (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Nevw (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Michael Z. (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Decision was made when users chose suitable tags in mapping process. I suppose no one bothered to inform authors of those edits that all their edits was wrong because we decided so? Suit yourselves. That decision should not be the result of voting at all, otherwise one fine day we will finish with Indian version of English --Maxxis (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Snusmumriken (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Marsi180986 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

See also

  • An earlier proposal to replace the en-us variant with the en-uk variant; made obsolete by this proposal.