[Tagging] RFC: shop=pastry
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Sun Nov 27 16:19:38 GMT 2011
Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:
> I'd like to propose shop=pastry. (Currently there are 13 of these
> according to taginfo)
> There is some recommendations for similar features
> I interpret the first as a place to sit and the second seems to be
> more suitable for candy and/or shops selling industrially produced
> sweets (at least that's the impression I get from the wiki), while
> shop=pastry would be intended for shops similar to shop=bakery, but
> specialized in sweet temptations.
Not what you asked, but it seems to me that a key problem is that the
set of valid tags effectively defines a taxonomy, and then imposes on
any user of the data the need to represent and use the taxonomy. We
seem not to talk about this, but I think it's a significant issue and we
In general, I think it makes sense to have a number of examples in mind
when making up tagging schemes.
Using subtags, rather than new top-level tags, means that data consumers
that don't know about the subtag still get more or less the right
answer, as opposed to "other".
So your option 1 seems reasonable, when it's a sit-down kind of place.
I might suggest cuisine=dessert. There are a number of places around me
that are basically places to sit down and have a "plated dessert" and
coffee. ("plated" means it is served on a plate with a knife and fork,
as opposed to sold in a box to be taken home.) I am not aware of any
that sell cake only, and not other kinds of dessert.
Instead of shop=pastry, I would say shop=bakery bakery=pastry, because
then the bakery rules work, for data consumers that don't know/care
about pastry. And, in the grand ontology we are avoiding building, a
pastry shop is generally a kind of bakery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging