Talk:Tag:shop=car

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discuss the Tag:shop=car page here:


shop=car which type of landuse should be used around poi/building?

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dretail
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial
- or other
Later, could this information add to mainpage?

Relation to shop=car_repair

We have shop=car_repair too.

When should you use that as opposed to shop=car service=repair ? Need to clarify

-- Harry Wood 11:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From my knowledge there is a difference, but I don't know if my english is good enough to explain it. The fact is, that if i need to do a vehicle check (maybe i should say overhauling?) or to fix problems such as an electronic failure I go to a certain shop/workshop (shop=car + service=repair), but if i crash my car and i want to repair it I have to go to another workshop (shop=car_repair). --Gwilbor 19:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that we should just add the specific service value, something like service=body_repair (I don't know if "body repair" is the proper word for the repair of crashed car, maybe some english speaker could point out the most appropriate term?) and get rid of the confusing shop=car_repair.--Kaitu 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well looking at it now, there's actually more uses of shop=car_repair (34 618) than shop=car (31 631).
The descriptions within the Key:Shop listing table has no mention of 'repair' for shop=car tag, so this is making a clear distinction within those brief descriptions. Also here lower down the page it explains "Note for a shop focused on car repair (usually independent of a specific car brand) use shop=car_repair." So this all suggests that the description at the top of this page should be modified to say that this tag is for shops which are primarily selling cars. They may offer repair services on the side (service=repair), meanwhile a shop=car_repair would be primarily a garage repairing cars.
That would be consistent, but it would be a little bit conflicting with the way some mappers (myself included probably) have been using the tag, (using only shop=car for everything). Even so I think it's a good change.
-- Harry Wood 20:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

shop=car + service=rental

As to unify all car-related subjects into one main key I propose shop=car + service=rental instead of amenity=car_rental . --E-Malte 16:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC) --- Yod4z 11:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I vote for this for a shop that rent car but for community rental (used in Paris, France) i use amenity=car_rental

shop=car + service=electrical

I noted that there's no tag for a car electrical repairs shop. So I added the "electrical" as a possible value for the key "service". --Gwilbor 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean? Is it repair shop for electrical cars (electromobiles like Tesla) or repair of electroinstallations in a normal car? Chrabros (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

More values for service key

Where I live we have car service shops specialized only on a particular repair and fitting, like: muffler replacement, windows replacement, car audio installation, routine maintenance (simple operations including for example brakes, oil and filters, and shock absorber replacement). Should we add appropriate values for the "service" key? --Kaitu 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"service" key name clash

Please note that the key service=* is already being used to add details about highway=service roads. --Head 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Service is not versatile enough

It's better to use multiple keys, as f.e. some services may be limited in ways (like having different opening hours). And the service tag is also clashing with the specification of highway=service.

Note that these can be used with any shop type, and generally are related to the type a shop sells. F.e. shop=computer and repair=yes means the shop also repairs computers.

  • repair=yes/no/... If the shop also repairs goods (of the same category as the sold goods of course)
  • second_hand=yes/no/... If the shop also sells second hand goods of that category
  • rental=yes/no/... If the shop also has a rental service
  • accessories=yes/no/... If the shop sells accessories (like motorcycle clothing for a motorcycle shop)
  • parts=yes/no/... If the shops sells parts related to the selling goods (like hard drives for a computer shop) .

Separate opening times can be given by using the conditional syntax when it differs from the regular opening hours. E.g. repair=yes @ (Mo-Fr 8:00-17:00).

This will lead to a better standardisation amongst shops, so data users have an easier job.

Note that we should probably also have something to point out a shop sells new stuff. It's possible a shop only repairs stuff, and sells second_hand stuff, but no new stuff. This makes choosing between the different shop possibilities (or even using second_hand=only) rather impossible. A key like first_hand=no could be used to explicitly tell that no new stuff is sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanderd17 (talkcontribs) 2014-09-22 09:11

For rental, there is amenity=car_rental. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
How about using a Namespace ? i.e. car:parts=yes/no, car:repair=yes/no car:sales=yes/no/used and so on ?
  • "Grouping of closely related keys in namespaces helps to separate this group of keys", see Namespace
  • "avoid ';' separated values whenever possible", see Semi-colon_value_separator (service=1;2;3;4;5)
    rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


This is currently in discussion, see [[1]]
IMHO the tagging scheme for services should generally be standardized for all shop types,
at least the tags which aren't specific
  • *sales=*
  • *repair=*
  • *rental=*
  • *parts=*
  • *type=*
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I find this whole "whatever=yes/no" tagging scheme you have going completely unnecessary, pedantic, and way to over complicated. If something doesn't provide something, just don't tag it with whatever it is. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated what things aren't (unless your tagging scheme is so none-nonsensical in the first place that you need to put extra effort into explaining what it means). Its also way to pointlessly detailed micro-mapping. like tagging an animal store with every animal the store doesn't sell/provide food for/etc. Ultimately know one cares what a shop doesn't provide. They only care about what it does. Just make the first tag good enough to convey it and leave it at that.
Also, do it through the normal proposal process where people can provide actual feedback on the tag, like everyone else does. Instead of forcing it down people's throats while you act like you care about feedback when you actually don't, Like your currently doing and did with the motorcycle: tag (which was just as screwed up and would have never gotten off the ground if didn't push it in completely shady ways). Ultimately, both are horrible tagging schemes and should be abandoned with prejudice. Especially consider your whole thing about going by the KISS principle (This isn't Wikipedia btw and people here don't care about its rules or what it has to say on those types of things). --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
If you think this is pedantic, have a look at this [2] and check here [3]
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
So because one bad tag was introduced without goung through the proper channels its Ok to do it with another one? That's a good what aboutism, but Its not an either or thing. If the new tag did go through a proposal process there's a good chance a better tag then both of them could have been found. Simply deciding your tag is better and retagging everything with it isnt the way to things though. Its borderline vandalism. Even if you think your new tag is a 100% better then the old one (if it is then why be hesitant to do things properly?). Ultimately, your free to use your new tag where ever you want until it gets wider acceptence without the proposal proccess being involved, but you cant mass change the old tags to yours and you cant claim yours is widely accepted or defacto when its not. Period. If you do, it will just catch up to you eventually and you'll either get everything you've done reverted or be banned from the site (that's usually the policy at least). Plus, its just massively rude and inconsiderate of other mappers, along with people maintain apps or styles that depend on certain tags for their renderers and cant just render something new on a dime, based on your whim. It shouldnt be done by iD Editor either, but he didnt do retagging of things like you did. He just introduced the new tag. So its completely different. (Adamant1)
Personally, I would have gone with something like car:service=repair (or whatever). Then there would be no need for the whole yes/no thing. Its much better. To bad you didnt think of it.
Also, there's already tags for things car rental. Its really not clear how amenity=car_rental is different from car:rental and it should be. 99% of the people aren't going to get it if there's a difference (and it doesn't like there is). A proposal would have that out though (I have a similar issue with the use of motorcycle:clothes=yes tag. Instead clothes=motorcycle. Clothes=motorcycle makes it clear that's the only thing being sold at the clothing store. Whereas motorcycle:clothes=yes is ambigious and could apply to either a shop selling just motorcycle clothes or motorcycle clothes along with other types. Again, that's something that should be clear in the tagging scheme etc and would have been worked out in a propsal proccess if one was done). Btw, keeping the word "service" in the car: domain with car:service would make it clear that its a service being provided and not a dedicated shop. Which would get rid of the ambiguity at least in that case. The same would probably apply to the motorcycle: tag also though. Its really to bad you didnt put more thought into it before pushing the tags (Adamant1)
There were several attempts to do so [4]. But even this time (unless we obviously already got a mess [5]), there seems to be more interest in the mail format than in the services [6] (unfortunately the overview on the tagging mailing list isn't very good whatever format is used, so you apparently couldn't find that info [7]). IMHO the "general shop namespace system" should be documented centrally. There are already several other tagging schemes using the noun:feature=value system (example : power plants). I see the advantage that for example you may use car:parts=custom or car:repair=service (just servicing, instead of "yes"=all repairs) or =tuning which makes it more flexible compared to your example clothes=motorcycle (or parts=car / repair=car). I can't see the advantage of the "service" prefix, is there any possibility it might be understood for something different ? (is selling parts a "service", is there an advantage if anyway everything is called a "service", see the current service:vehicle:anythingelsewhatcomestoyourmind [8] "system" ?)
rtfmRtfm (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I was aware of your early proposal and I've also been following the discussions on the tagging mailing list (I agree its hard to parse through. They could have a better system for that). As far as the proposal, its a perfect example of what I was saying. You initiated the proposal and then when someone (Dieterdreist) provided constructive feedback about the problems of the tag style you blew him off and decided to use the tag anyway as if it was legitimately accepted,Without ever either integrating his feedback into the proposal or taking it to a final vote. As I said, your perfectly free to road test your tagging scheme on the map to see how it works while you wait for the proposal process to complete, but you can't replace a bunch of valid tags with it in the meantime or change the wiki pages of competing tags to say that your tag now replaces them. Especially if they widely used and accepted, like in the case of shop=car_repair.
It doesn't matter if your tag is a 100% improvement (which it isn't), you should wait for the proposal process to be complete (or just use your tag and leave the established ones alone). In the mean time sometimes it can take a few years to get established or go through the proposal process. That's life. Also, going by the fact that Dieterdreist was the only person that participated in your proposal, its pretty clear you didn't announce and discuss the on the tagging mailing list first. Just mentioning it as a note to another only semi-related tag where know one would probably see it isn't enough (which is clear by the lack of responses to it). It needs its own topic. The minimal effort you put in might be slightly enough for you to justify using the key anyway, but its not enough to be considered following the rules or proper process (let alone justify re-tagging of established tags or the advocating of other people not using them anymore on the tags wiki pages. If anything there should only be a small mention of the tagging scheme in the pages "see also" sections with a link to the proposal. That's what done in every other instance. A whole separate section telling people to tag things your now is completely ridiculous though and not how its done). --Adamant1 (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how this epic philosophy fits into the shop=car "Service is not versatile enough" discussion. You'd better explain it elsewhere and just link to it from here if you consider it necessary. Doesn't really help to keep the overview (regarding the main topic) on this page. Anyway it would be more productive to do something constructive instead just blaming others.
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"it would be more productive to do something constructive instead just blaming others." Seems like your the one blaming others by saying that it was OK you didn't go through the proper process to get your tag accepted because people asked you to format your messages on the mailing list better. Not to mention your repeated dismissal of any criticizing of the tag, like saying I only have a problem with it because I'm paranoid, whatever that has to do with it, or the whole "But but but its better then iD Editors tag though). So maybe you should take your own advice. Also, constantly referring to other only semi related tags, along with messages on mailing lists that have nothing specific about the tags is about as off topic as you can get. Just stick to the topic. Either your tag is good or its not. Some thing on the mailing list about how you formatted your message wrong and what iD Editor does has nothing to do with it. In my opinion its not a good tag and I gave ample evidence as to why. Whereas, all I've heard from you is excuses, blaming others, and you continuing to push the tags everywhere despite negative feedback from multiple people, not just me. Me and others saying you should go through the RFC and proposal process is the productive, constructive thing to do. You pushing the tag the improper way, which will just lead to reversions later (and already is) or adoption of a possibly sub par tagging scheme isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Tuning shop

How should I be tagging a car tuning shop? Like they don't do actual repairs or sell cars, but install parts, etc

What I did so far was: parts = no repair = no retail = no service = tuning shop = car

(eg. here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583810856 )

car:parts=custom
car:repair=tuning
rtfm Rtfm (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)