<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Hi Simon,</p>
    I also can't see a difference <br>
    between boutique and fashion.<br>
    <span class="ind">Both might be a shop <br>
      with other items than clothes<br>
      according to these definitions :<br>
    </span>
    <p>"<span class="ind">A small shop selling fashionable clothes or
        accessories"<br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boutique">https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boutique</a><br>
        "a small store that sells stylish clothing, jewelry, or other
        usually luxury goods".<br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique</a></span></p>
    <p><span class="ind">"A popular or the latest style of clothing,
        hair, decoration, or behaviour."<br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fashion">https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fashion</a><br>
        "Fashion is a popular style or practice, especially in clothing,
        footwear, accessories, makeup, body, or furniture."<br>
        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion</a><br>
        <br>
        Possibly a<br>
        shop=</span><span class="ind"><span class="ind">fashion<br>
        </span>with<br>
        fashion:type=</span><span class="ind">accessories;clothes</span></p>
    <p><span class="ind">I think this system may be described properly<br>
        without causing confusion.<br>
        Please let me know which "lot of reasons" you mean.</span></p>
    <p><span class="ind">Cheers,<br>
        Thilo<br>
      </span></p>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 27.08.2017 um 15:04 schrieb Simon
      Poole:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:2a4629c1-74a4-35fe-5531-e6049de4e58a@poole.ch">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <p>There is a big difference between a limited number of binary
        options and  essentially moving all values in to key space (and
        I can give a lot of reasons why it is a really really bad idea
        in a free form, user extendible tagging system). <br>
      </p>
      <p>But it seems to be rather off-topic in this thread in any case:
        I simply wanted to know if there is a clear characterisation of
        shop=fashion that can serve as disambiguation between it and
        shop=boutique and shop=clothes (with appropriate additional
        tags).</p>
      <p>We have one voice saying that it should be considered a cheap
        variant of boutique limited to clothes, and the others
        suggesting that it is an upmarket shop=clothes and that
        shop=boutique should have a broader not only clothes definition.</p>
      <p> One takeaway is that adding the "clothes" tag both to fashion
        and boutique would be a good idea.<br>
      </p>
      Simon<br>
      <br>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.08.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Thilo
        Haug:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite"
        cite="mid:4c3ea147-3588-01b7-19d3-4a14230bef52@gmx.de">
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
          charset=utf-8">
        <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"
            moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
        <br>
        <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
        <br>
        <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <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>