[Tagging] Pet supplies store but doesn't sell animals

Serge Wroclawski 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:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> 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:

shop=pets
animals:fish=yes

and

shop=pets
animals=no

The logical conclusion is:

shop=pets
animals:cats=yes
animals:reptiles=gecko;snakes
supplies:cat_food=dry;canned
supplies:fish=block;flakes;filters;nets
supplies:fish:treasure_chest=no
...

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.

- Serge



More information about the Tagging mailing list