[Tagging] Vacant shop tagging...

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Aug 18 09:48:32 BST 2010

2010/8/18 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:30 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I'd prefer shop=no personally, in an effort to reduce all the
> synonyms for "nothing" that software developers have to manage.

I don't think that this is a good idea. An empty shop is still a shop,
so shop=no is simply wrong.

>From Berlin I know the situation that many former shops are used for
living, especially in the eastern parts. Those appartments would still
have "shop" in their name ("Ladenwohnung"). Thing is: legally they are
appartments then (and economic activity is excluded) but
architecturally / typologically they are still shops in some of the
cases (when they haven't been structurally transformed: raised
cross-sill / closed door to street with masonry). There is another
case: the front is used as shop and the back as appartment. The latter
is close to the historical situation, but nowadays mainly practised by
artists and the like.

Unless the shop is transformed (e.g. for living) it will remain a shop
IMHO. If the shop is empty, some defined value (and why shouldn't that
be "vacant"?) should be used (maybe according to the status, because
there might be empty shops that are not vacant). shop=no is IMHO
misleading and doesn't express "vacant".



More information about the Tagging mailing list