[Tagging] Pet supplies store but doesn't sell animals
emacsen at gmail.com
Sat Jun 11 17:33:07 BST 2011
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 June 2011 06:16, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>>> Is there a specific tag for pet supplies (food, collars, chew toys etc)
>> I'm used to pet stores being ambigious, and don' have a problem with
>> that. But I'd say shop=pet_supplies is better than animals=no.
>> Still, I think that the distinction is fairly narrow.
> Lots of pet stores here now no longer sell animals, but they still
> call themselves pet stores since they still sell products for pets,
> still listed in the yellow pages like that etc, I'd be inclined to
> still tag them as a pet shop, and use your animals=no suggestion,
> because then you can have animal:fish=yes as well if they sell one
> type of animal.
The problem with these types of proposals, of N levels of depth of a
tag, is that they quickly become complex, and thus get unused.
You, Dr. Who, are proposing changing shop=pets to now:
The logical conclusion is:
Going back to the original point:
Is there some minor ambiguity between a pet store that sells animals
and one that doesn't? Sure, but it's a minor. I tend not to like to
frequent pet shops that sell pets when I can, but it's easy to find
out which ones those are when you need to.
But for OSM, lat namespaces are a good thing. They're easy to explain
to our users, and easy to code for.
So if we need to distinguish, let's use something simple and flat to do so.
More information about the Tagging