Talk:Tag:shop=street vendor

Citing from proposal Proposed features/street vendor=yes :
"Street vendors are on the edge of mappable features." [...] "Street vendors may sell any kind of product or service'"
--> it should be AND/OR products and services (what if they sell several, as quite usual ?)
"As such shops are at the same worth tagging and disappear completely outside their opening hours it is useful for other mappers to explicitly note this. It allows easier distinguishing between misplaced shops and correctly market street vendors ."
--> It would be even more useful to distinguish it by calling them what they are : shop=street_vendor.
This should avoid any misunderstandings. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Because this is a suggestion for the new tag, so I added the "proposal template" --Władysław Komorek (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"It would be even more useful to distinguish it by calling them what they are" - why? Both shop=street_vendor and street_vendor=yes communicate the same but: (1) shop=street_vendor blocks specifying shop type, (2) shop=street_vendor is excluding street vendors that are not shops. For example it seems to exclude street vendors selling prepared meals, what is one of the most typical case of a street vendor. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If these are mappable, ie., someone can return on another day & find the same vendor then they obviously should be mapped with shop & street_vendor=yes. In many countries these are a major form of retail outlet, and I think usually the places they trade, "pitches", will be controlled officially or informally. If the trader is ephemeral then they should not be mapped. Note also some street vendors will trade from small kiosks which may be permanent or relocated each trading day. SK53 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Answer to "distinguish it by calling them what they are" : I think the "subtag" (key) is easier to miss than the "shop" tag. Additionally I would have problems to call something like this example a shop=hardware : [1] (might be irritating for someone searching for a "real" store). I know some "food truck" examples (on parkings or in front of enterprises) which would be irritating if a "shop" would show up in the middle of a place. In case I call it shop=street_vendor, it would IMHO be visible "at first glance".

"If the trader is ephemeral" should be common sense, but could be mentioned. I think "street vendors (which) trade from small kiosks which may be permanent" should be called shop=kiosk, but only "transportable" structures shop=street_vendor (including market stands which are just partly "torn down" in the evening).There seem to be some who see a market stand as a building though, see "Possible Synonym" at building=grandstand rtfm Rtfm (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"Additionally I would have problems to call something like this example a shop=hardware" - if necessary it is OK to invent a new shop types (though in this case shop=hardware seems perfectly fine to me). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"I think the "subtag" (key) is easier to miss than the "shop" tag." - and it justifies completely losing standard method for classifying shops? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

street vendor=yes

I don't support shop=street_vendor for said reasons, but if you could send in street_vendor=yes for voting, I'd definitely approve that. Can we count on your help? We have lots of amenity=fast_food vendors around here who operate from places not considered buildings, like mostly immobilized vans. Many shops can be considered street vendors in a similar meaning - for example malls usually also operate shops in places not considered proper rooms, like greengrocers, bag shops mobile phone repair desks in the middle of corridors. Bkil (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)