[Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Mar 11 09:41:11 UTC 2019

Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 09:15 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:

> On 11/03/19 18:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> most used values in “clothes” are
> women
> underwear
> children
> men
> wedding
> sports
> yes
> workwear
> lingerie
> how would “fashion” relate to this, or “boutique”? The first IMHO refers
> to the style of the clothing, the latter to the style they are sold.
> Humm .. some of that is;
> use of the clothing
> sex of the user
> age of the user
> Fashion? I suppose that is a 'use"? Along with sports, workwear, wedding,
> underwear, lingerie?
> So I too would sport migration of shop=fashion to shop=clothing,
> clothing=fashion

you have convinced me, if you look at the "clothes" key, the common thing
is they are all sub types of shops, so both, boutique and fashion could fit
well. The apparent sub-category missing from above would be "general
clothes" which would imply only clothing (not a department store), but
sections for men, women and children (and probably lingerie and sports,
while I have hardly ever seen "workwear" in shops like these). Looking
again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children
242 times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with
184 uses (0,9%).
This would of course not imply you could get all shops for all kind of
clothing with a simple shop=clothes query, because of shoes, sports,
leather, etc., but it would solve the issues that have been voiced against
boutiques and fashion on the shop level. Looking only at the numbers, it
would be harder to support, because shop=fashion has more uses than any
single clothes-value.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190311/9af3fb9b/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list