<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I'm in favor of a namespace solution, <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace</a><br>
e.g.</p>
<p>ski:clothes=yes<br>
surfing:clothes=yes<br>
motorcycle:clothes=yes<br>
any_other_sport:clothes=yes<br>
</p>
<p>and so on.</p>
<p>This way you may also tag other shops (not just shop=clothes)<br>
in a way which exactly describes their offers,<br>
in this example possibly a shop=sports.</p>
<p>The same works also for other services they offer,<br>
like <br>
ski:repair=yes<br>
ski:rental=yes<br>
ski:parts=yes</p>
<p>This way there's no need to create a new shop type <br>
or decide whether it's MORE one type of shop (bicycle vs.
motorcycle vs. car or similar)<br>
in case they offer very various things.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br>
Thilo<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.08.2017 um 13:13 schrieb Martin
Koppenhoefer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C18CF484-FCA5-4E0F-8A99-16A0E50441F5@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div><br>
<br>
sent from a phone</div>
<div><br>
On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole <<a
href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" moz-do-not-send="true">simon@poole.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000
something uses) </span><br>
<span>should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due
to overlap with</span><br>
<span>shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes,
clothes=fashion (not</span><br>
<span>particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just
doesn't seem to</span><br>
<span>have a good definition, which is already pointed out on
the wiki page</span><br>
<span>(but without a conclusion).</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while
shop=clothes is not particularly helpful if you're looking to
buy clothes (too generic). I'd roughly see it like this:
boutique expensive, fashion cheap(er), department store both,
supermarket cheap ;-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt
(department shops apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a
"boutique for men"? To buy gloves I'd try with a shop=bags? Or
shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an outdoor shop? There are many
places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, according to the
material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer or
multiple, or no (known) designer, discounter, different types of
clothing (underwear, shirts, etc.</div>
<div>I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's
IMHO a clear distinction between fashion shops and boutiques,
with maybe some edge cases, but still useful overall.
Nonetheless I agree that shop=clothes does require subtags to be
more useful, but the current situation in the clothes key is not
working:</div>
<div><a
href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values</a></div>
<div>There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g.
target group (women, men, children, babies), for specific
occasions/uses (sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur),
type (underwear/lingerie). Fashion would be yet another new
category in this cauldron (with 111 uses it isn't really
significant).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>cheers,</div>
<div>Martin </div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Thilo Haug
Bismarckstr.37
72764 Reutlingen
Mobil: +49 177 3185856
Festnetz : +49 7121 3826414</pre>
</body>
</html>