Talk:Proposed features/shop subtags

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

More Examples

As of the mailing list discussion,
to make those infos available for everyone.

A clothes shop will possibly need more differentiation
(than sales, rental, parts, repair, type),
example :

  • shop=fashion/boutique/clothes
  • clothes:for=men/women/children
  • clothes:material=fur/leather/fabric/denim
  • clothes:type=fashion/sports/work/wedding

Some "mixed shops" examples mentioned in the discussion:

"my favorite one is this: An optician also selling delicatessen (or maybe a delicatessen store also selling glasses)."

" - Khai Tri is a Vietnamese bookshop in Paris, whose best known feature is the bánh mì sandwiches stand at the back of the shop... For now in Openstreetmap it is only a bookshop."

"Tuba is a sexshop for women, but also selling books and operating a cafe/bar: As the sexshop property is not very prominent in the shop I decided to classify it as a bookshop and cafe."

The above mentioned are extreme, but "related" items like shoes/clothes or bicycle/motorcycle/atv/jetski
are often sold by the same shop, possibly items are also sold by more "general" shops
like supermarkets, malls, electronics, doityourself, hardware etc.

  • shop=garden_centre
  • robot:sales=yes
  • robot:type=lawn_mover

  • shop=sports
  • ski:sales=yes
  • ski:rental=no
  • ski:repair=yes
  • ski:clothes=yes
  • ski:shoes=yes
  • board:sales=yes
  • board:type=sailboard;wakeboard
  • running:shoes=yes

This system is easy to parse for apps

Here's an other example I'll tag as shop=fashion instead of shop=clothes :w:Claire's The RedBurn (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a good example, as it doesn't matter how you name the main tag as long as it's understandable what they offer in the "context" of subtags such as
  • jewelry:sales=yes
  • watches:sales=no
  • clothes:sales=yes
  • shoes:sales=yes
[user:rtfm] Rtfm (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Why 'shoptype'

It's particularly absurd to tag shoptype:type. The word "type" should be avoided because it is overly generic, better use words that tell what the tag is about, e.g. size, color, etc. No need to prefix "shoptype" to all the keys, it doesn't add anything. Or we'll end up with shoptype:type:type:type ;-) --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"shoptype" is only a replacement here for any type of shop,
i.e. ski:type=* , motorcycle:type=*, clothes:type=*
If you've got a better idea how to express this, feel free to edit it. Rtfm (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • shoptype:type=x;y;z could just be shoptype=x;y;z. example shop=clothes clothes=x;y;z

The deletion of the suffix ":type" is for example in progress with the proposal with Fire_Hydrant Marc CH (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"shoptype" is just a replacement (variable).
It would be
  • clothes:type=*
  • shoes:type=*
  • anythingelse_which_exists_as_shop:type=*
Nice to know about the hydrants. What's the reason ?
And how about this ? :
Whith which expression would you replace "type" ?
Also see shop=motorcycle, same question.
IMHO "type" may be used even for shop=seafood
If you've got a shop=boutique (or any other which might sell clothes)
you'll need
to express exactly what they are selling.
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

sales is not a good choice

I would avoid the word "sales", either create a property with the verb "sells" or use the singular "sale", or maybe "vending" which is already in use. You don't propose "rentals" or "repairs", so "sales" is odd, and it's ambiguous. --Dieterdreist (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

"Sales" is a very common expression for the sales department :

British & World English "The exchange of a commodity for money; the action of selling something"

North American English "The exchange of a commodity for money; the action of selling something"
(see the "Example sentences" for "sales")
The singular might sound like a season sale [[1]].
Have a look at this picture's name : IPhone sales per quarter simple.svg

rtfm Rtfm (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it an abandoned proposal?

Is there any plan to progress with this proposal or is it abandoned? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it's abandoned as of lack of interest. I assume most of the people aren't keen on the OSM discussions and therefore tag "what they want" instead of investing their time into standardisation (which would IMHO be necessary). A nice example is the shop=car (services) topic, which was mentioned several years ago on the mailing list and had absolutely no effect (except someone tried to hide the (unclear) circumstances in the wiki description rtfmRtfm (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)