[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

Jarek Piórkowski jarek at piorkowski.ca
Mon Aug 10 14:32:51 UTC 2020

On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:50, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Not exactly.  Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises.
>> while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you could tell from seeing a shop=* tag that consumption is never allowed at all. At least in Germany for some kind of shop, e.g. shop=bakery or shop=butcher, there could be a few tables where you can stand (or sit, but if it’s for sitting it would be called a cafe) and eat things that you bought without it necessarily becoming a „cafe“ or fast food, nor an amenity=bakery
> We're into cultural edge cases here.

Not surprising since your "shop fits where consumption is not allowed
on the premises" is a very your-culture-centric view on things.

> There are places with lots of seats for consumption on the premises.  And places
> with no seats at all for consumption off the premises.  Calling both of those
> amenities is not helpful.  Calling both of those shops is not helpful.  We clearly
> need both amenity and shop IF both of those types of establishment exist for
> bubble tea.

I disagree with the premise that consumption on premises is to be a
divider. Making two tags for the same kind of shop/service depending
if there's a bench or not seems bad to me. There's supermarkets around
here with a lunch bar where you can order some hot food and sit and
eat it - would you make them an amenity too?

I think we should not use "consumption on premises" as a criterion for
shop/amenity split. If you disagree, please explain how the existing
tags shop=hairdresser and amenity=pharmacy fit into your proposed
tagging scheme.


More information about the Tagging mailing list