dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Aug 26 11:13:22 UTC 2017
sent from a phone
> On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses)
> should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
> shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
> particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
> have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
> (but without a conclusion).
I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while shop=clothes is not particularly helpful if you're looking to buy clothes (too generic). I'd roughly see it like this: boutique expensive, fashion cheap(er), department store both, supermarket cheap ;-)
What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt (department shops apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a "boutique for men"? To buy gloves I'd try with a shop=bags? Or shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an outdoor shop? There are many places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, according to the material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer or multiple, or no (known) designer, discounter, different types of clothing (underwear, shirts, etc.
I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a clear distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe some edge cases, but still useful overall. Nonetheless I agree that shop=clothes does require subtags to be more useful, but the current situation in the clothes key is not working:
There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target group (women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses (sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type (underwear/lingerie). Fashion would be yet another new category in this cauldron (with 111 uses it isn't really significant).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging