[Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion
graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 11 22:28:13 UTC 2019
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 19:43, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> 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).
clothes=general or clothes=yes?
> 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%).
& there's also myriads of men;women;children, women;children;men,
women;babies;children & every other possible combination you could ever
imagine (or create by a typo!)
> 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.
Yeah, 230k shop=clothes but only 20k of all "types" of clothes combined,
then 7000 =fashion & 15000 =boutique, but from the comments here, you have
to wonder how many of those "boutiques" are actually selling high-level
(very expensive!) clothing?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging