Talk:Tag:shop=vacant

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

what's wrong?

What's wrong with shop=vacant? A vacant shop looks like a vacant shop, and we tag what we see. Adding disused=yes or similar won't do the trick, because a shop loses its classification (clothes, food, toys...) as soon as it becomes vacant. It still does look like a shop, but usually it cannot be seen which kind of shop it was. --Fkv (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's repeat what I wrote on Template talk:Map Features:shop: For me, a major argument against using shop=vacant is that it contradicts the definition of the shop key ("A place selling retail products or services."), as vacant shops don't sell anything. From a more practical perspective, it may be a good idea for certain applications to show all shops. With thousands of different shops, you really should be able to just filter using the shop=* key without having to deal with not-actually-shops.
And if the classification bothers you, there is still the option of using disused:shop=yes. --Tordanik 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I used shop=vacant a lot, and never really thought about it. I can see disused:shop=* has some advantages although I don't feel strongly either way.
A vacant shop still has some of the interesting characteristics of a shop when it's taking up a space on the high street (it's that kind of thing I'm imagining). In a way you could say a vacant shop is still a shop. Note however, I would not say a vacant butchers shop is still a butchers shop. A data consumer is probably not going direct somebody to it in the hope of buying something because we're saying nothing about the shop type. It's not too bad on the "principle of least surprise".
On the other hand, yeah maybe 'disused' is better.
Most of the times when I've mapped vacant shops, it hasn't been particularly apparent what type of shop it was or will become. So I guess disused:shop=yes captures that. Shall we document that on this page?
-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I also used shop=vacant a lot to map vacant shops, and I feel like it is the right thing to do. To me, a vacant shop and a disused shop are two different things. The latter makes me think of an abandonned, discontinued commercial space that has been empty for a longer time and is not readily available without major construction work for a new business to move in, a place that the owner has obviously given up, falling into a ruin or being demolished soon. As a vacant shop I picture a commercial space that is generally in good, maintained shape and ready for a new business to move in, often signposted "for lease". Aside from that, I think the definition of a shop "A place selling retail products or services." is much too narrow. The word shop may refer to a business that sells things but it can also refer to some commercial real estate, like a building or a space in a building. The latter idea of shop would also agree to the motto "we map what we see". We see the tangible shop (empty or not) rather than the intangible business. The unspecific "shop=yes" is pretty useless. I might care for specific shops, even for vacant shops if I'd be looking to open a business, but I cannot imagine why I would be interessted in a shop without knowing what it sells. For that reason I think "shop=vacant" is as good of a shop value as any other - except of shop=yes. -- Freetz 08:03, 19. September 2017 (UTC)
In OSM tagging, there's a distinction between "disused" and "abandoned". The situation you describe (an abandoned commercial space that is falling into disrepair) seems like a perfect job for abandoned, while disused is available for a vacant but still usable space.
To me, shop=vacant is pretty much a trolltag (or "troll value", as the case may be). "This is a place selling retail products or services. More specifically, it sells ... nothing." You may prefer a different definition for the key, but unless there's a consensus for that change, the current definition is still what data consumers should be able to rely on. We don't need to speculate about possible use cases, either, as displaying a generic icon for unknown shop types (e.g. a dot) is something that is already being done in practice. --Tordanik 09:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Why would data consumers not be able to handle shop=vacant in a specific way? This value is documented in the wiki and used over 13,000 times. Any consumer that is serious about shops, should already handle this in whatsoever way the developers think is best for their application. Sure, there is a more or less subtle difference between "disused" and "abandoned", both in OSM and IRL. However, the real-life "disused" refers to a more final decomminsioning, usually leading up to either "abandonned" or "demolished". A vacant shop is neither "disused" nor "abandonned", it is more like "temporarily out of service" and expected to be back in service anytime. This aspect is what brings "shop=vacant" even close to "shop=yes". As we all know, OSM is not real-time media. As such, a vacant - or in your preference disused - shop might have already been re-opened by the time a users looks at OSM or at any consumers - just the same way any "shop=*" might have ran out of business - unnoticed in OSM - by the same time. Most consumers, however, ignore "disused" items. Hence, a disused shop is very likely to be hidden from most users - even though it might be a "shop=yes" in the meantime. If you did consider "shop=vacant" as a shop that may or may not sell (specific) things, it is as useful as "shop=yes". In my view, "shop=vacant" comes with the advantage that it is found by most consumers contrary to disused. OSM neither promises that a shop=chocolate sells chocolate at any specific time, neither does it promise that a shop=vacant sells nothing at any specific time -- Freetz 09:04, 21. September 2017 (UTC)
One can also argue if using the defintion of "A place selling retail products or services." and "disused" makes sense. A place doesn't sell things, people do or machines do, in general a business. A business, however - as a legal entity - cannot become disused. After it ran out of business, it is gone. -- Freetz 09:32 21. September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Freetz (and Fkv); see my comments below under landuse. Johnparis (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


photo

I'm sure I had a better photo of this. I'll have to dig it out. Trouble with the current one is, it's not actually entirely apparent that the shop is vacant. It might just have it's metal shutters closed (which is a common problem while mapping shops actually) -- Harry Wood (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I updated the photo. Johnparis (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

shop=vacant is really redundant

Many small vacant shops are still used as apartments in the floors above so it is not really vacant or disused. Why not delete the shop relevant tags and just leave the building attributes as is?

-- User:Dcp 14:06, 21 August 2016

Land-use planning

In some cases, local land-use planning rules (such as a Dutch "bestemmingsplan") may require that the next user is also a shop. In that case, shop=vacant (or disused:shop=yes) may be more appropriate or informative than just building=yes, especially if the building is clearly recognisable as a former shop. --IByte (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Using shop=vacant for this still has the problem that applications will often (rightfully imo) interpret any shop value as an active shop, not just a building mandated to be used for a shop by land-use planning rules. I believe disused:shop=yes would be a great fit, though! --Tordanik 16:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any end-user problem with shop=vacant. What do you envision, a journalist who is searching for "a shop of any sort", to interview a shopkeeper, and lo and behold when he arrives at a "vacant" shop he is disappointed? In the real world, people are looking for particular kinds of shops. And searching for vacant shops can have many useful purposes.
There is no tagger problem either; we "tag what we see." We don't tag for applications. I agree that the definition of shop is rather cramped, and could use revision, but that seems unlikely.
A greater problem for land-use is that it doesn't apply to nodes; in this case a generic landuse=commercial or even landuse=retail might be more descriptive, but that's not an option.
I thought of building=yes combined with disused:shop=yes, but that's not really accurate, as often there will be several storefronts in one building, only one of which is vacant. So what top-level tag would you use instead? shop=no? Kind of ridiculous.
So all in all, I'd say shop=vacant is the most useful top-level tag, possibly in combination with disused:shop=yes. Johnparis (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you believe that disused:shop=yes cannot be used on nodes on its own, but you're mistaken. It is a top-level tag, and can be used in any place where you want might consider using shop=vacant.
Furthermore, there is no such rule as "we don't tag for applications". In fact, making OSM data easy to work with for developers is a significant factor when designing tagging standards! You may be confusing it with Tagging for the renderer, which speaks out against using incorrect tags – precisely because doing so would break the documented definitions of tags that data consumers need to rely on.
And as for possible use cases, even the standard style has a catch-all dot for shop types that it does not have specific icons for. The user of the map is then shown a generic icon along with a name or other relevant information – surely that's still useful? --Tordanik 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. You're right, I was thinking of tagging for the renderer, which doesn't apply here. While Overpass Turbo and JOSM both allow searching for disused as a tag, neither ID nor Potlatch show it as a top-level tag. I imagine those are the most commonly used editors by taggers. I'm still not persuaded by your end-user case, since the "other relevant information" displayed would presumably, in this case, be "vacant", which is unambiguous. In any case, the good news is that people have the choice of using either or both. Johnparis (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)