Discussion on draft
I see a high risk that vegetarian=yes is confused with vegetarian=available. I propose vegetarian=only instead to make it clear. --emka 18:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest option 3 above. The term vegetarian is too general. Defining the diet types would be more effective, especially to practising vegetarians. Where multiple diets are provided, vegetarian=available could be used. Denoting vegetarian only and vegan only seems more useful, as almost all restaurants, etc can provide some vegetarian food, if limited. Denoting meat or fish only would also be useful. --oikologikos 16:36 15 February 2011.
where "yes" = 100% vegetarian and "available" = you can get veggie/vegan food along side meat and fish
The other variant may be better: "yes" for "vegan food along side meat", and "only" for "100% vegetarian". This is more common practice. --Surly 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this change would be an improvement of the definition. --Tordanik 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussions on the proposal
Is there any reason this very same feature should not be used for [convenience stores] too? If not, does this have to be voted for again (I have no experience with proceedings here)? --Canislupuscampestris (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- The proposal explicitly mentions convenience stores, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be used there. --Tordanik 08:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Other diet restrictions
This proposal could be useful also for other diet restrictions like kosher or halal, instead of Proposed features/kosher; subcategories of kosher (from that page) could be tagged as
with, of course,
diet:kosher=<OFFER> for the generic case.
Another option (if I remember correctly the meanings of the above) could be to add a tag
Valhalla 11:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think a distinction needs to be made between dietary restrictions adopted for religious or moral reasons (kosher, halal, some vegetarians), and those where the dietary restriction is essential for good health (specifically, gluten-free, but also things like lactose intolerance). There is still a strong perception that gluten-free diet is a fad, and that a little bit of gluten won't hurt. Kosher food must also adhere to many other restrictions including methods of food preparation, storage and kitchen design which cannot be covered by a diet=kosher. For gluten-free food, often the most important thing is not specific gluten-free dishes, but a kitchen which is sufficiently aware and flexible to prepare suitable modifications of dishes (for instance sauces without wheat flour). I find it difficult to think how best to tag this, particularly as it is very subject to change. In the UK the Coeliac Society publish lists of suitable food products and eating places, but to my surprise this information is held behind a subscription wall on the internet. As someone with a couple of relations on gluten-free diets I am interested in making this work. SK53 12:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Do you think kosher and gluten-free both belong in a different proposal, or is ok to expand the veggie/vegan list to include them all in a "dietary requirements (for whatever reason)" key? TomChance 13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- My feeling is that trying to bring everything together under a catch-all diet:*=* tag will make things too complicated, so I'd keep them separate. Most of the use cases discussed so far require a high-degree of interest and awareness on the part of the tagger, and it's unlikely that we have many gluten-free kosher vegetarians. The value of the vegetarian proposal is that it highlights the relatedness of these concepts. I'll have to try tagging the local chip shop which does gluten-free food on Saturday, and then I'll understand it a bit better. But clearly the local pub with a few baked potatoes does not deserve tagging as vegetarian or gluten-free. SK53 13:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've asked a few local vegetarian groups what they think about "the local pub with a few baked potatoes", I'm inclined to agree with you but want to make sure we draw the line in the right place. TomChance 13:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- it depends on the country/culture too. restaurants serving eggs are considered veg in many places, but in india to a hindu this would be a non-veg restaurant. laufkaefer 12:53, 21st February 2011
- I think having multiple tags for different restrictions allows for very good descriptive precision, especially with the colon separator. Unless somebody integrates this into potlatch2, this is not going to see a lot of instantiation though. Somebody opened a related [ticket] but this does not seem to be ranking high on the developers prio list. I would have opened another ticket mentioning Proposed_features/Vegetarian but I could not open a ticket without registering and I don't know how to do that - if it's even possible for outsiders that is. I think the only reasonable approach for dealing with this in a GUI is to have a dropdown for the values of key cuisine, intelligently dealing with the de facto standard of separating multiple cuisines with an ";" and updating the (alphabetically sorted!) list dynamically from [taginfo], maybe taking the top 100-150 or setting a threshold count. Drop downs are fine but an "add another" button for adding multiple cuisines (or restrictions, if implemented) is sorely missing. The drop down for dietary restrictions could be modeled just like the drop down for cuisine. --Canislupuscampestris (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I know restaurants that serve macrobiotic food. No sugar, few fruits, lots of cereals as a base and vegetables, but also the way of preparing and combining the ingredients matters. So it's different from simply no meat/eggs. Shouldn't there be a way to tag those? Bio shops also offer the ingredients (biologically grown), but they cater for all kinds specific diets, of course.
--Polyglot 21:42, 20 April 2011 (BST)
- For the first draft, you have to draw the line somewhere. You are still free to tag what you want, e.g.
diet:macrobiotic=yes. This can be added in a later extension proposal. (Or just add it to the list when it is widely used in the database.) --Bk 08:43, 21 April 2011 (BST)