[Tagging] shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets

[Janko Mihelić]

I would be more in favor of a+b) because you might want to tag a place with
shop=pastry because 95% of their assortiment is pastry, but they have 5%
candy so you add candy=yes.

Janko

pon, 11. svi 2015. 17:12 Brad Neuhauser <brad.neuhauser at gmail.com> je
napisao:

> In my experience, most places that sell pastries would be better tagged as
> bakery. Even if they only sell pastries (ie no bread), they do have to bake
> them, right? :)
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:43 AM, moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I believe there is some overlap between the shop values
>> >
>> > confectionery
>> > pastry
>> > candy
>> > sweets
>> >
>> > shop=confectionery is used much more often than the other 3 (10K vs. 300
>> > vs. 100 vs. 50) and is likely covering all of these, but is quite
>> generic.
>> > For the very reason it can be used for both: pastry (baker's
>> confections)
>> > and candy (sugar confections), it is often less useful IMHO (at least
>> > without subtag, which is currently not documented). "often", because in
>> > some countries these tend to be distinct shops, but in other contexts
>> there
>> > might be shops that are offering both kind.
>> >
>> > If you are looking for sugar confections or baker's confections,
>> finding a
>> > shop that only sells the other variant of confections will not be
>> helpful
>> > but rather a big annoyance.
>> >
>> > From previous discussions on this matter I believe to remember that
>> > "pastry" is actually not covering the entire subset of baker's
>> confections,
>> > so the term might be less appropriate.
>> >
>> > "sweets" is not very specific neither, is not defined in the wiki and
>> can
>> > maybe cover both, candy and pastry, or might be a synonym for
>> candy/sugar
>> > confections (I am not sure about this, would be nice to hear what the
>> > natives say). It also doesn't seem to add any additional information
>> with
>> > respect to confectionery, so I would suggest to deprecate its use
>> > completely.
>> >
>> > I think we could deal with this situation in several ways:
>> >
>> > a) use confectionery, pastry and candy as competing top-level tags and
>> > suggest to be the most specific where possible (i.e. aim to have only
>> mixed
>> > shops tagged with the generic confectionery tag and recommend the more
>> > specific pastry and candy tags where applicable).
>> >
>> > b) recommend to only use confectionery as the main top level tag and use
>> > subtags like bakers_confectionery=yes and/or sugar_confectionery=yes to
>> > make the distinction
>> >
>> > c) your suggestion here
>> >
>> > Personally I favor b). What do you think?
>>
>> My initial reaction was "there's no overlap between pastry and
>> confectionery, they are totally different things". Some cultural
>> background: in France, shops selling candys are very rare, but shops
>> selling pastries are very common because bread shops are everywhere
>> and usually also sell pastries and danishes. Pastry-only shops are
>> quite rare. See also shop=patisserie (62 uses).
>>
>> But using shop=confectionery and refining that into raw sug^W^Wsubtags
>> makes sense too.
>>
>> For the subtag itself, I'm not a fan of FOO_confectionery=yes: I think
>> that confectionery=FOO follows established tag-creation best practices
>> better. It's used a bit in the db already. And if one needs to tag
>> multiple types, either "confectionery=FOO;BAR" or
>> "confectionery:FOO=yes confectgionery:BAR=yes" works for me (but I
>> prefer the later).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150511/4daf0b5d/attachment.html>