[Tagging] Shop values review

John Eldredge john at jfeldredge.com
Fri Oct 23 01:18:57 UTC 2015

Well, perhaps I misunderstood the proposal. It sounded to me like the 
proposal was that a store aimed at selling building materials to 
professional builders, but not the general public, would simply be tagged 
shop=trade, with no further qualifiers to specify what trade was intended.

John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot 
drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

On October 18, 2015 5:55:23 AM ael <law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 07:28:39PM -0500, John Eldredge wrote:
>> I find shop=trade too generic to be useful, as there are many different
>> trades besides the building-construction trades.
> Where does that constraint come from? You can have the subtag trade take
> pretty well any relevant value. Building_materials just happened to be
> the original motivation.
> As for "white-collar" and such, that seems to be some sort of local
> class distinction. There is absolutely no such intention in the original
> proposal. Rather "trade" suggests "professional", and as such perhaps to
> be admired and emulated.
> But really it was invented as a way to tag clear groups of places that
> had no obvious existing tags, and using the subtag had the great
> advantage that applications did not have to know all the possible
> values of "trade". Applications can just include them in, say, a group
> of shop POIs in the vicinity. The user can then inspect and decide which are of
> interest.
> Having a plethora of slightly different main tags seems an inferior
> approach. But again, the subtag trade again has the vast advantage
> that it is completely compatible with as many main tags as needed.
> Some values of trade might become redundant if a new main tag is
> invented, but that is ok.
> What am I missing?
> ael

More information about the Tagging mailing list