<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-06-05 17:03, Tod Fitch wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:36604A1A-7480-44D1-A303-B034081D3C42@fitchdesign.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:03 AM, Tobias Knerr wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Am 04.06.2014 22:35, schrieb André Pirard:
That's another new tagging system though. And even doing it like this
breaks down when there is more than one shop in the building.
Therefore I believe that the only really clean solution is to actually
create one OSM element per feature: one for each shop, and one for the
building. This is also future proof - want to also tag the level the
shop is on, or even do complete indoor mapping? You can!
Now, I don't think this should be enforced in situations where there is
only one shop in the building and where the building itself doesn't have
name, wikipedia or other tags different from the shop's. But for the
general case, I'm still in favour of using multiple elements.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
(written yesterday)<br>
I never said that and what I wrote had better been quoted for
getting ourselves understood.<br>
<br>
In traditional parlance, many questions are ambiguous because for
example shop is used both for a building drawn on the map and an
activity within.<br>
In order to completely get away with ambiguity, shop had better been
a banished word in my talk and replaced by sale taking place in all
sorts of building represented by map elements, <br>
<br>
I agree that, leaving the ambiguous words "shop" and "feature"
alone, a separately run sale must be within its own map element be
it only a single node representing a booth. That is, the sale
attributes applies to the booth object.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:36604A1A-7480-44D1-A303-B034081D3C42@fitchdesign.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">How would you tag a shop within a shop?</pre>
</blockquote>
Your question triggered my rewording above, thanks.<br>
The "in traditional ... map elements" paragraph above applies.<br>
Then your question becomes: "how do we tag sale that's taking place
in a building that is inside another building?". And the answer
becomes obvious: it's only tagging a building (in the wide sense)
inside a building.<br>
<br>
It is the goal of my reasoning to make notions well defined and
rational in order to make the consequences more obvious and hence
facilitate understanding and mutual agreement.<br>
Most logical systems start with precise definitions like node, way,
polygon and relation.<br>
Tagging cannot escape that.<br>
That cannot be improved without some changes and agreement.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:36604A1A-7480-44D1-A303-B034081D3C42@fitchdesign.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">For example, here it is fairly common to have a mini-bank branch and/or coffee (StarBucks) shop within a supermarket? I don't know how the ownership details work, but the amenities are branded differently than the supermarket and the employees staffing them are uniformed differently than the supermarket employees.</pre>
</blockquote>
A supermarket="sale activity within a building" does not prevent
another building being inside where another activity takes place.
You forgot toilets where the activity is not really sale even if one
may have to pay ;-) Why not add a node that we dare called toilets
because it represents a kind of building that cannot be another kind
like a kennel at the same time (1). Then we can safely add to that
node attribute tags related to toilets without risking the confusion
resulting from trying to add such tags to the supermarket building.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>