daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl
Thu Aug 31 12:25:01 UTC 2017
W dniu 31.08.2017 o 06:57, Marc Gemis pisze:
> No only that, a boutique usually sells more than just clothes
> (jewellery, handbags, ...) and I assume you get a more personal
> service as well than in the shop=clothes of large chains.
> I don't understand the reason for having fashion, but even I know when
> to use boutique (I think).
The whole point is finding good enough definition. shop=fashion seems to be doomed, because we have no idea how it's different from shop=clothes, but if we can show differences for shop=boutique, we can decide if it should be deprecated or just update wiki.
Definition needs to have core properties which allow to classify shop type, but may also contain hints (optional secondary properties). How would you describe it then?
> And for me a shoe store is not a clothes stores. That does not mean
For me too - I don't propose to deprecate it. It's easy to define and
popular enough. It can be just extended with subtags like shoes:for=*
and similar and this is all I propose.
> Unless you change your proposal to just changing shop=fashion (and I
> still haven't seen really good arguments for that change -- and no, a
> few male mappers that do not understand the current wiki definition is
> not a good reason) my vote will be against your proposal.
I want to use the input from discussion to update this proposition
eventually, but we're still talking, so no rush.
But definition is a universal tool - no matter what
sex/gender/age/nationality/profession you are, it should be easy to say
if it's a car shop or motorcycle shop for example, even if you're not
interested in the subject.
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. Muzalyev]
More information about the Tagging