Discuss Key:clothes here:
[german] Hallo Head, da Du keine valide E-Mailadresse hinterlegt hast, muß ich diesen Weg wählen: Sehe ich das richtig, daß es zu diesem Tag kein Proposal gegeben hat?
[english] Hello Head, because you do not have valid e-mail address stored, I have to choose this way: Do I see correctly, that there was no proposal to this tag?
User 5359 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This page says second hand clothes should be tagged as shop=second_hand while that page tells to use shop=clothes ("more specific"). I agree, more detail is needed, because shop=second_hand could be computer, book, whatever. Stats:
- shop=second_hand : 541 (don't know if they are clothes)
- shop=clothes : 15650 (don't know if they are second hand) (I use this tag)
- clothes=second_hand : 2
These tags don't give option to tag a second hand computer shop, for example. I would propose a second_hand=yes tag that can be applied on anything, without reserving the place from actual detail value.
Kempelen 20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The information on this page was helpful. logictheo 16:31, 17 August 2010 (BST)
Suggest adding clothes=accessories
Somebody asked the question 'Which tag to use for accessorise shop?'. "Accessorize" is a chain of shops throughout the UK selling fashion accessories, i.e. necklaces, bangles, earrings, scarfs, ties, hat, handbags and other bits of fashion extras. I've recommended mapping this as shop=clothes, clothes=accessories, name=Accessorize so I guess I should suggest we add it here -- Harry Wood 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The wiki discourages to use clothes=shoes. I think this does not work properly in case of multiple values at clothes=* e.g. clothes=suits;fashion. What if a shop sells besides suits and fashion shoes, too? I prefer to use shoes at clothes, since otherwise it is not possible to provide any tagging (shop=shoes not possible, because shop=clothes already exists). --U715371 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I agree completely with this comment. Could this discouraging text be removed? (And replaced with a better text, e.g. "use only if a shop does not sell shoes only (e.g. clothes for women, men and shoes: clothes=women;men;shoes), otherwise use shop=shoes".) Many small (and larger) shops in our city sell clothes as well as shoes – how should they be tagged? It's wonderful to tag shops which sell ONLY shoes with shop=shoes, but the others could very well be tagged with shop=clothes and clothes=women;men;shoes for example. I decided to use the clothes=shoes value for these cases, because I see no other possibility and it's very reasonable. So why not? --Goodidea (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- It looks the thing about using shop=shoes instead was added when the article was created in 2010. The person who made the edit said they were picking values randomly and that we free to change them. So I see zero reason it would be controvesal to change. Since it doesn't seem like they discussed it or anything themselves anyway or cared if the list was altered. Especially if the clause in the message above mine is used to clarify things. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion for evening dresses
I found that shops, where wedding clothes are sold, do often sell evening dresses, too. But I guess that those items are sold at many other places, too. Does it make sense to you to use a tag like clothes=evening_dresses?--U715371 (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Id like to add a "Vintage" key. Is that something that would be better suited for shop=boutique though?
This is a terrible proposal. Tagging this way makes it impossible to indicate that a shop is for example selling both sports clothes and swim gear, or hats for men only, or oversized suits.
This should have been put up as clothes:type=yes/no/only. That way you can have clothes:sports=yes + clothes:swimgear=yes, or clothes:hats=yes + clothes:women=no, or clothes:oversize=only + clothes:suits=only.
- Hhmmm, that's wierd since I can go into OsmAnd right now and see that a clothing shop sells womens and mens clothing thanks to the use of semi-colons. Imagine a scenario though where this is a namespace instead, and there's a bunch of clothes:whatever=no/yes/oversize/etc/etc tags on a single object (btw there's already some examples on the map). How easy whould that be to load and navigate through 15 clothes:women=no, clothes:oversize=no, clothes:baby=no, etc etc just so I can find out if the place sells mens clothes or not or what kinds of mens clothes they sell? With namespaces there can be litterally an endless amount of no tags also. Plus, who and how would we decide what goes in the second word after the :? Because there's endless options there also. clothes:women=swimwear, clothes:wimwear=women, etc etc. There's also no way to indicate that a place just sells clothes with a namespace while leaving out what type of clothes because you cant leave the second word empty. So should we just force someone to put in a random word for the second value or make it so they just cant tag that a place sells clothes when they might not know what type of clothes are sold there? Seriously. I've never gotten an answer to those questions from people who advocate a namespace as a way to do inventory tagging. It gives me the impression that they haven't really thought it through. More so because they all think using a key is an impossible way to do this for some wierd reason when keys are implemented pretty much everywhere in multiple pieces of software for this kind of thing. Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Type of clothes vs. what sex/gender clothes are designed for
I'd like to tag a shop that exclusively sells women's underwear, but this seems impossible with clothes=*, as it mixes what is sold and who is sold for. clothes=women;underwear would likely be misunderstood as a shop that sells women's clothes as well as women's and men's underwear. It would probably be better to use gender=* instead of clothes=women/men/women;men. --Dafadllyn (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's something I've thought about myself. For whatever reason, it seems a little weird these days to tag the gender of the clothes that are sold in a clothing store. It's weird to tag the gender of who they are selling them to though. I don't know. Men can buy and wear women's clothes, women can by and wear men's clothes, a lot of people don't even identify as either of those. I'd love to know if there's anywhere that would refuse to sell a women's clothing item to a man or visa versa. Maybe it's the case with women's underwear shops that some don't allow men because of the environment or something. There are tags like shop=boutique that imply they are for women's clothing without explicitly saying so. Maybe something like that and the product tag would be better. I don't know. I could be totally over thinking it though. I just feel like the only sure usage of the clothes tag is for children versus adult clothing stores, or clear cases where it's specifically about the item being sold. Like a hat or purse store and gender based evaluations or who they are willing to sell to or not are left out of it. That kind of stuff is way transient/not universal anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if i was a bit imprecise. I didn't mean "who clothes are sold to", but rather "what sex/gender clothes are designed for". It is still the case that the lagest share of clothes is designed with either women and men in mind – not only with regard to the design, but also with regard to the different body proportions. In addition, there's a rather small share of clothes designed for both female and men, i.e. unisex clothes. Of course, men can wear woman's clothes and vice versa. And i also didn't mean who is allowed to buy the clothes. If there are really shops where only women or men are admittet, the access keys female=* and male=* can be used. What i meant is that type and sex of clothes are two different things that need to different keys. --Dafadllyn (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)