On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 June 2011 06:16, Serge Wroclawski <emac...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Is there a specific tag for pet supplies (food, collars, chew toys etc) >> >> I'm used to pet stores being ambigious, and don' have a problem with >> that. But I'd say shop=pet_supplies is better than animals=no. >> >> Still, I think that the distinction is fairly narrow. > > Lots of pet stores here now no longer sell animals, but they still > call themselves pet stores since they still sell products for pets, > still listed in the yellow pages like that etc, I'd be inclined to > still tag them as a pet shop, and use your animals=no suggestion, > because then you can have animal:fish=yes as well if they sell one > type of animal.
The problem with these types of proposals, of N levels of depth of a tag, is that they quickly become complex, and thus get unused. You, Dr. Who, are proposing changing shop=pets to now: shop=pets animals:fish=yes and shop=pets animals=no The logical conclusion is: shop=pets animals:cats=yes animals:reptiles=gecko;snakes supplies:cat_food=dry;canned supplies:fish=block;flakes;filters;nets supplies:fish:treasure_chest=no ... Going back to the original point: Is there some minor ambiguity between a pet store that sells animals and one that doesn't? Sure, but it's a minor. I tend not to like to frequent pet shops that sell pets when I can, but it's easy to find out which ones those are when you need to. But for OSM, lat namespaces are a good thing. They're easy to explain to our users, and easy to code for. So if we need to distinguish, let's use something simple and flat to do so. - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
