[Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Mar 7 06:50:32 UTC 2016

On 7/03/2016 12:39 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> On 03/07/2016 12:11 AM, Warin wrote:
>> So you would prefer
>> sells=motorcycle;yamaha
> I don't think that OSM is the right place to encode an ontology of
> things. That there are different types of bread and different brands of
> motorcycles, and that a "Yamaha" is a motorcycle while a "Hovis" is a
> bread, is not something I expect do gather from OSM tags.

Not something you want in OSM?
How could someone travelling look for a motorcycle shop that sells Yamaha motorcycles?
People do get POI files with such information, it is something people want .... why not provide it in OSM?
There is a great deal in OSM that I don't need/want e.g.boat navigation aids. But I will not prevent others from entering and using that data.

> Frankly, with OSM not being a business directory, I don't even think the
> particulars about what a shop sells should be mapped, except perhaps in
> some limited cases.

If it is not for you, don't map it.

Is there a way to stop others mapping them?  I don't think so.

My aim is to providing some reasonable way for the mapper to tag them,
at least better than the present each shop having individual uncoordinated tags that mean each shop type will have its own system,
its own method and its own key names and key values. All separate and different.

For example at present  a mapper adding tags to a sewing shop that sells sewing machines can have

paff=yes    ... that makes no sense unless you know Paff make sewing machines.

gutenberg=yes ... makes no sense unless you know they make thread... but it is also a project for copyright free books ...

husqvarna=yes ... makes both motorcycles and sewing machines ... does this mean both are sold here?

sewing_machines=yes ... OK, but I want a Paff...

> Just imagine what would happen if someone took it
> upon them to actually list all the products sold at a supermarket. And
> update that once a week.

There is nothing stopping them doing that now, they can make up what ever tagging system they want and use it.

They would have a lot of work to do. Fine by me.

What is the 'problem'? Why the objection to so much detail... if someone is prepared to do it .. let them.
But let them use a common system that 'we' might recognise?

More information about the Tagging mailing list