[Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01/22/2014 02:56 PM, bulwersator wrote:
> We are NOT mapping online-only activity. Attempting to place things like
> this on map is pointless and should be reverted as fast as possible to
> keep this from spreading.

I tend to agree with that sentiment but it is difficult to draw the line.

I think that essentially we are about location. A business where, in the
end, potentially after looking at the web site etc., the
customer/client/patient comes in through the door and participates in
some kind of transaction has every right to be on the map.

We are not a yellow page dictionary. A business that does not expect
people to walk through the door, but buy something on a web site, is of
relatively little relevance for a map; only the very small number of
people who want to deliver a letter there or come to clean the office
will be interested in the location of the business - which, to *those*
people, will be known by the address alone.

I'm prepared to make an exception if the office in question has
"landmark" character, i.e. if it is a clearly visible building or shop
that can serve to identify where you are on the map.

Our map database should be able to answer the question "where's the
nearest fuel station / dentist / lawyer / fashion boutique", but
"where's the nearest registered address of a business where nobody will
open the door" or "where's the nearest online clothing retailer" are not
really questions I see us answering because for these, the word "near"
really has little meaning.

I think the key question we should look at is motivation - if someone
wants to put their business on the map to receive customers through the
door that's ok; if they want to put their business on the map to receive
clicks tho their web site then that's not ok.

When in doubt (i.e. online retailer claims they genuinely want to be
marked on the map but to us it looks like they just want their URL
promoted), let's add them without a web link.

Bye
Frederik