[Talk-GB] Debenhams & Peloton

[Cj Malone]

On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 15:36 +0100, Dave F wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/08/2021 11:11, Cj Malone wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 23:37 +0100, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > > 1. Is there any valid reasons for not adding 'disused:' to the ~80
> > > closed Debenhams stores which are still tagged as 'shop'?
> > I guess there are some for it, and some against it. I don't know
> > where
> > I stand overall.
> > 
> > Not all Debenhams stores are now disused shops,
> 
> Which one's are these?
> Aren't they still all under receivership & require change of use 
> permissions?
> 

The only one I looked at was Sheffield, but you are probably right,
it'll be waiting for planning permission. (Wouldn't it be good if we
could hook into planning permission to prompt edits in OSM, too bad
it's copyrighted)

> > some are being
> > converted into flats because overcharging tenants is all the rage
> > these
> > days. Changing them to disused shops leave them just as wrong as they
> > currently are, but by part fixing them it can leave the problem while
> > making it harder to identify.
> 
> Unsure I follow that logic.

I meant "disused shops COULD leave them just as wrong", not that it
always does. In fact the majority of the time it would be right to turn
them into disuesd:shop.

As for identifying errors, we know all Debenhams shops as wrong. But if
we change that to disuesd:shop, we don't know if that is right, it
could already be another shop, or residential, or something else. We
just don't know. Hence it is easier to identify errors with the current
status quo of leaving them.

> 
> > Changing the data to disused:shop or even shop=yes, can still
> > highlight
> > them in QA tools and editors, StreetComplete will ask you with both
> > the
> > above tags.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with that. It's asking the contributor to check if 
> it;s still correct.
> Quite a few contributors assume validators are saying there's something
> definitely wrong in the database. This is a incorrect assumption.

The first 2 paragraphs of my email were saying what currently happens,
and the last 2 where in support of the edit, just discussing what
could/will happen. Like I said in the beginning, I don't know the
answer. I'm leaning towards the edit because the status quo isn't
working. There is far to much out of date data in OSM, since we aren't
massively expanding the amount of contributors, I think we need to
expand the amount of work current contributors can do.


> >   We could also open notes at the locations asking people
> > what has replaced the stores.
> 
> I don't think anything has replaced them

In most cases, I expect nothing has, yet. The argument for the status
quo is that leaving it highlights it in QA tools such as Survey Me.
Changing it to disused:shop would stop it rendering and (eventually)
prompt for it as a quest in StreetComplete, but (as far as I know) no
other editors or QA tools will highlight it. Changing it to shop=yes
would stop it rendering in Carto, have it immediately as a quest in
StreetComplete and highlight it in other QA tools.

I don't know the answer, just trying to document both sides. And don't
think of this email as being against the edit, I wouldn't complain if
you do the edit.

This discussion in StreetComplete could be of interest. It may lead to
dead brands being included as quests immediately, it should probably be
discussed with other QA tools and editors.

https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/discussions/3083#discussioncomment-1219140

Cj