Hi Simon, I also can't see a difference between boutique and fashion. Both might be a shop with other items than clothes according to these definitions :
"A small shop selling fashionable clothes or accessories" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/boutique "a small store that sells stylish clothing, jewelry, or other usually luxury goods". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique "A popular or the latest style of clothing, hair, decoration, or behaviour." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fashion "Fashion is a popular style or practice, especially in clothing, footwear, accessories, makeup, body, or furniture." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion Possibly a shop=fashion with fashion:type=accessories;clothes I think this system may be described properly without causing confusion. Please let me know which "lot of reasons" you mean. Cheers, Thilo Am 27.08.2017 um 15:04 schrieb Simon Poole: > > There is a big difference between a limited number of binary options > and essentially moving all values in to key space (and I can give a > lot of reasons why it is a really really bad idea in a free form, user > extendible tagging system). > > But it seems to be rather off-topic in this thread in any case: I > simply wanted to know if there is a clear characterisation of > shop=fashion that can serve as disambiguation between it and > shop=boutique and shop=clothes (with appropriate additional tags). > > We have one voice saying that it should be considered a cheap variant > of boutique limited to clothes, and the others suggesting that it is > an upmarket shop=clothes and that shop=boutique should have a broader > not only clothes definition. > > One takeaway is that adding the "clothes" tag both to fashion and > boutique would be a good idea. > > Simon > > Am 26.08.2017 um 13:53 schrieb Thilo Haug: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm in favor of a namespace solution, >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace >> e.g. >> >> ski:clothes=yes >> surfing:clothes=yes >> motorcycle:clothes=yes >> any_other_sport:clothes=yes >> >> and so on. >> >> This way you may also tag other shops (not just shop=clothes) >> in a way which exactly describes their offers, >> in this example possibly a shop=sports. >> >> The same works also for other services they offer, >> like >> ski:repair=yes >> ski:rental=yes >> ski:parts=yes >> >> This way there's no need to create a new shop type >> or decide whether it's MORE one type of shop (bicycle vs. motorcycle >> vs. car or similar) >> in case they offer very various things. >> >> Cheers, >> Thilo >> >> >> Am 26.08.2017 um 13:13 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >>> >>> >>> sent from a phone >>> >>> On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch >>> <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: >>> >>>> the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses) >>>> should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap >>>> with >>>> shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not >>>> particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to >>>> have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page >>>> (but without a conclusion). >>> >>> >>> I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while shop=clothes >>> is not particularly helpful if you're looking to buy clothes (too >>> generic). I'd roughly see it like this: boutique expensive, fashion >>> cheap(er), department store both, supermarket cheap ;-) >>> >>> What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt >>> (department shops apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a >>> "boutique for men"? To buy gloves I'd try with a shop=bags? Or >>> shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an outdoor shop? There are many >>> places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, according to the >>> material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer or >>> multiple, or no (known) designer, discounter, different types of >>> clothing (underwear, shirts, etc. >>> I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a >>> clear distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe >>> some edge cases, but still useful overall. Nonetheless I agree that >>> shop=clothes does require subtags to be more useful, but the current >>> situation in the clothes key is not working: >>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values >>> There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target >>> group (women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses >>> (sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type >>> (underwear/lingerie). Fashion would be yet another new category in >>> this cauldron (with 111 uses it isn't really significant). >>> >>> cheers, >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> -- >> >> Thilo Haug >> Bismarckstr.37 >> 72764 Reutlingen >> >> Mobil: +49 177 3185856 >> Festnetz : +49 7121 3826414 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Thilo Haug Bismarckstr.37 72764 Reutlingen Mobil: +49 177 3185856 Festnetz : +49 7121 3826414
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
