Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 10/10/2019 00:11, Warin wrote:

On 09/10/19 21:21, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.


"Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under 
its own brand with immediate effect."


"planed' "are to be" "talks with individual landlords" 'rebranded"

That looks to me to take time ... so not immediate. And it may not be 
all shops.

Certainly the name will be different.


The cynic on my shoulder is whispering that it sounds too good to be 
true. I'm wondering how tightly bound into TC's other business ventures 
their retail outlets are.


And as has been stated the state of all shops is currently closed.
A USP of OSM is how quickly we can, or at least, should, be able to 
react to these sorts of changes, but as I said previously, there's a lot 
of faffing.


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 21:21, Martin Wynne wrote:

On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.


"Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under 
its own brand with immediate effect."


"planed' "are to be" "talks with individual landlords" 'rebranded"

That looks to me to take time ... so not immediate. And it may not be 
all shops.

Certainly the name will be different.

disused is the present state.
With some work these may be retagged to drop the disused and a name 
change, but that may not be all the shops .. so that may need a survey.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Jez Nicholson]

Heh, "...an A4 notice of closure (with few details) on the door, the
absence of staff, and unopened post on the floor,.." looks pretty
conclusive to me. I surveyed my local branch and found similar so have
changed it to disused.

I like the method of flipping shop, name, brand with a 'disused:' prefix as
it would be reversible en masses, or for a single anomaly. Recently, all
Jamie's Italian branches closed...except the one in Gatwick Airport. Which
was a surprise.

Now, Thomas Cook shops may be bought by a competitor and probably
rebranded. But right now they are disused.

Personally, now that closure has been confirmed by survey I would like to
see all the branches changed programmatically.

- Jez

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, 13:04 SK53,  wrote:

> I went to check one which is a few hundred metres off my normal route to
> the supermarket. For some reason I didn't take photos.
>
> Apart from an A4 notice of closure (with few details) on the door, the
> absence of staff, and unopened post on the floor, the shop looked as
> normal. Deals still advertised in windows, brochures in racks and desks for
> staff etc. It did look a little bare compared with how I remember them, but
> I don't think I've visited a travel agent more than 3 times in the past 25
> years so I don't have a proper baseline of comparison.
>
> If I had just been driving past and had no knowledge of the news about
> Thomas Cook I'd be none the wiser that they had closed. Even on a visit the
> available evidence would not have been enough on it's own to convince me
> that that particular shop had closed for good.
>
> This doesn't provide any answers, but, I think, does demonstrate that even
> an initial ground survey would not be adequate to determine the final
> status for a less well known store.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:22, Martin Wynne  wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
>> > Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.
>>
>> "Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its
>> own brand with immediate effect."
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[SK53]

I went to check one which is a few hundred metres off my normal route to
the supermarket. For some reason I didn't take photos.

Apart from an A4 notice of closure (with few details) on the door, the
absence of staff, and unopened post on the floor, the shop looked as
normal. Deals still advertised in windows, brochures in racks and desks for
staff etc. It did look a little bare compared with how I remember them, but
I don't think I've visited a travel agent more than 3 times in the past 25
years so I don't have a proper baseline of comparison.

If I had just been driving past and had no knowledge of the news about
Thomas Cook I'd be none the wiser that they had closed. Even on a visit the
available evidence would not have been enough on it's own to convince me
that that particular shop had closed for good.

This doesn't provide any answers, but, I think, does demonstrate that even
an initial ground survey would not be adequate to determine the final
status for a less well known store.

Jerry

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:22, Martin Wynne  wrote:

> On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.
>
> "Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its
> own brand with immediate effect."
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Martin Wynne]

On 09/10/2019 11:11, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.


"Sunderland-based Hays said it planned to reopen all the shops under its 
own brand with immediate effect."


Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Not so fast... The current Company is still bust. The shops are closed.

On 09/10/2019 11:00, Martin Wynne wrote:

The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Not so fast -- see:

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49985369

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Martin Wynne]

The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Not so fast -- see:

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49985369

Martin.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

On 30/09/19 00:30, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.


+1
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that 
people like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street 
but no one likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & 
instead relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops 
will be "wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.


The advantage of turning them all to disused: is that they are done.

The disadvantage is that there is no local confirmation. However .. I 
think most will agree that even without a local survey .. the shop is 
closed.


Raising not everything named 'Thomas Cook' is the travel agency is fine, 
once pointed out I would think the editor will take care of that issue.



If some mapper cares to do a survey they might as well do all the 
disused: etc in that locality, not simply the old Thomas Cooks.






I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


It may not mislead a UK person, it may well mislead a foreign tourist 
who may well be having enough trouble coping with English. The map is 
not really for the local, who knows the area and culture, but the 
visitor finding their way.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[David Woolley]

On 29/09/2019 15:30, Dave F wrote:
Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & instead 
relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops will be 
"wrong".


It could well actually have the opposite effect by getting people to 
audit lesser known businesses on the same street.



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:30, David Woolley wrote:


I think too much effort goes into these big changes.


The actual change is dead easy in JOSM. It's all this faffing about 
having to discuss it that takes up all the time.
As I said in another thread this increasing reluctance to 
removing/updating data while allowing _anyone_ to add data is 
detrimental to the OSM database. Take the new quarterly project as an 
example - anonymous users are allowed to add notes, but are unable to 
delete.


The real problem with business directory mapping on OSM is that people 
like doing the first time mapping of shops on a high street but no one 
likes maintaining them.


This thread is *specifically* about maintaining.

The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or small 
businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably orders 
of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


Preventing the mass (hardly "mass" though) edit of Thomas Cook & instead 
relying on individuals to update *will* guarantee more shops will be 
"wrong".


The benefit of a one changeset edit is that it would be extremely easy 
to update if there's an (unlikely) change in the firms fortunes.




I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss 
of a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


Unsure what you mean by "misled", but surely if any shop that's 
incorrectly tagged will inconvenience someone if they use OSM to plan 
their visit?


DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 29/09/2019 14:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:

Re: my comment about shop=vacant. I may have been convinced to use
disused:shop=travel_agent + name=Thomas Cook.


* travel_agency


  Not sure whether a vacant
shop with no ghost signage would still be a shop=vacant or a
disused:shop=yes.
As those two tags have the same meaning, whether there's still a name 
tag make no difference. (Although as I said, I prefer disused:shop).



I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I favour
visual confirmation.


I consider multiple national/regional media reports of liquidation & 
mass redundancy as visual



Is there a case for automated addition of OSM Notes or Fixmes to
stores/locations to ask people to check?

My OP asked people to check. No ones come back.

DaveF

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[David Woolley]

On 29/09/2019 14:03, Jez Nicholson wrote:


I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook 
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I 
favour visual confirmation.




I think too much effort goes into these big changes.  The real problem 
with business directory mapping on OSM is that people like doing the 
first time mapping of shops on a high street but no one likes 
maintaining them. The number of shops that are wrong because of churn or 
small businesses, or individual closures of chain shops is probably 
orders of magnitude more than the ones that get lots of publicity.


I doubt that many people are going to get misled by a Thomas Cook or 
Maplins store that remains mapped, but many may be misled by the loss of 
a specialist store that didn't make the national press.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Jez Nicholson]

Re: my comment about shop=vacant. I may have been convinced to use
disused:shop=travel_agent + name=Thomas Cook. Not sure whether a vacant
shop with no ghost signage would still be a shop=vacant or a
disused:shop=yes.

I'm not keen on bulk automated closing everything called Thomas Cook
because the world is more complicated than it first seems to be. I favour
visual confirmation.

Is there a case for automated addition of OSM Notes or Fixmes to
stores/locations to ask people to check?

- Jez

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 6:54 PM Andrew Hain 
wrote:

> We can check for properties where the brand:wikidata tag was left behind
> by checking the other tags, particularly name= and shop=.
>
> --
> Andrew
> --
> *From:* SK53 
> *Sent:* 28 September 2019 17:32
> *To:* Silent Spike 
> *Cc:* Talk GB 
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops
>
> The specific problem with that suggestion is that you miss lots of Thomas
> Cook shops (particularly old Co-op Travel & Ilkeston Co-op travel): it hits
> about 3 within 15 miles of Nottingham whereas there are nearer 11 (for
> obvious reasons), and one of those is apparently is not
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116307151/history> now a travel agent.
>
> This latter aspect shows that editors other than iD may not surface
> Wikipedia/wikidata tags & that therefore such data needs to be
> cross-checked, and bulk edits may inadvertently change other things. In
> many ways I prefer that we acquire new local mappers (like OftenResident in
> Alfreton) who notice that an area is out-of-date & set about getting it
> up-to-date, rather than doing a partial update and missing other info (like
> the shop is now a hairdresser). Obviously others think we should keep
> everything as up-to-date as the information we have available. I don't
> think we have ever reached a consensus on this.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Silent Spike 
> wrote:
>
> It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally
> I like the `disused:` prefix.
>
> I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all
> the locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the
> `brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP
>
> All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused
> or vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas
> Cook (the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have
> been sold and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least
> know for certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops
> anymore.
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Andrew Hain]

We can check for properties where the brand:wikidata tag was left behind by 
checking the other tags, particularly name= and shop=.

--
Andrew

From: SK53 
Sent: 28 September 2019 17:32
To: Silent Spike 
Cc: Talk GB 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

The specific problem with that suggestion is that you miss lots of Thomas Cook 
shops (particularly old Co-op Travel & Ilkeston Co-op travel): it hits about 3 
within 15 miles of Nottingham whereas there are nearer 11 (for obvious 
reasons), and one of those is apparently is 
not<https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/116307151/history> now a travel agent.

This latter aspect shows that editors other than iD may not surface 
Wikipedia/wikidata tags & that therefore such data needs to be cross-checked, 
and bulk edits may inadvertently change other things. In many ways I prefer 
that we acquire new local mappers (like OftenResident in Alfreton) who notice 
that an area is out-of-date & set about getting it up-to-date, rather than 
doing a partial update and missing other info (like the shop is now a 
hairdresser). Obviously others think we should keep everything as up-to-date as 
the information we have available. I don't think we have ever reached a 
consensus on this.

Jerry

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Silent Spike 
mailto:silentspike...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally I 
like the `disused:` prefix.

I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all the 
locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the 
`brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP

All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused or 
vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas Cook 
(the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have been sold 
and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least know for 
certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops anymore.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[SK53]

The specific problem with that suggestion is that you miss lots of Thomas
Cook shops (particularly old Co-op Travel & Ilkeston Co-op travel): it hits
about 3 within 15 miles of Nottingham whereas there are nearer 11 (for
obvious reasons), and one of those is apparently is not
 now a travel agent.

This latter aspect shows that editors other than iD may not surface
Wikipedia/wikidata tags & that therefore such data needs to be
cross-checked, and bulk edits may inadvertently change other things. In
many ways I prefer that we acquire new local mappers (like OftenResident in
Alfreton) who notice that an area is out-of-date & set about getting it
up-to-date, rather than doing a partial update and missing other info (like
the shop is now a hairdresser). Obviously others think we should keep
everything as up-to-date as the information we have available. I don't
think we have ever reached a consensus on this.

Jerry

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 16:41, Silent Spike  wrote:

> It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally
> I like the `disused:` prefix.
>
> I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all
> the locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the
> `brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP
>
> All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused
> or vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas
> Cook (the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have
> been sold and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least
> know for certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops
> anymore.
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Silent Spike]

It's unclear to me if there's a consensus on the tagging here. Personally I
like the `disused:` prefix.

I couldn't see if it was mentioned anywhere, but we can also query for all
the locations explicitly marked as part of the Thomas Cook brand using the
`brand:wikidata` tag: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MFP

All of the results here can really be automatically re-tagged as disused or
vacant since we explicitly know they were locations belonging to Thomas
Cook (the beauty of wikidata tagging). You might say some may already have
been sold and re-signed, but that can always be tagged after - we at least
know for certain that none of them are Thomas Cook travel agency shops
anymore.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Warin]

A liquidator will try to maximalise money returned.
This could/should mean sale of fixtures and fitting of leased premisses 
and then terminating leases.




 On 25/09/19 22:03, Edward Bainton wrote:

Legal situation of leases, fixtures and fittings as far as I'm aware:
- Lease continues and rent continues to be payable.
- Liquidator can disclaim the lease, bringing all obligations to an end OR
- Once in arrears/other breach of covenant (such as keeping open for 
trade), landlord can deem the lease forfeit: property returns to them
- Once owed 7 days' rent (which could be many months hence if paid 
quarterly in advance), landlord has right to impound and liquidate 
fixtures and fittings to offset their losses, after some procedural 
safeguards.


But as SK53 says, eyeballs must be best.

Not a lawyer, just a geek who read this up as a charity trustee. 
Corrections gladly received.


On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:07, SK53 > wrote:


I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly
pronto, although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been
liquidated I presume all leases on retail property are now in
default, and consequently null and void. Landlords will be anxious
to get new tenants as quickly as possible, and are likely to clear
the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of speculation on my
part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether
way we can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.

Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their
shops were cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they
remained as visible 'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time
afterwards.

A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes
would be to only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage
disappears. Frederic Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by
landmark at SotM, and prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are
often useful landmarks. However, I think this is still a luxury
for the average mapper trying to keep somewhere up-to-date.

Jerry

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:

Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the
public today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in
the future and that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if
the administrator sells some or all of them to another
company. In the mean time they are still branded and still a
landmark of sorts.

If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change
that one otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see
what happens.

cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,
mailto:t4d...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I changed the three shops in N.I to
disused;shop=travel-agent since I wasn't sure what the
best practice was in this case. Not all of them had the
wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?



__



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Peter Neale via Talk-GB]

But, as I am sure has been said by someone else recently:
a.  A shop is still a shop, even when it is closed.b.  A permanently closed 
shop that still has the signage / branding all over it is still a useful 
landmark.
So, I think I would favour disused:shop=*  That way you know from the outset 
that you won't be able to buy anything there atm, but all the other details, 
like name= can be retained.
Regards,Peter

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019, 14:03:21 BST, Andy Allan 
 wrote:  
 
 On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:51, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 13:38, Dave F via Talk-GB
>  wrote:
> >
> > Because shop=* indicates it is still open for business.
>
> If it does not do so in "shop=vacant" then it does not do so in
> something like "opening_hours = none".

What you're proposing here is "oh no it isn't" tagging, which is
generally frowned on.

amenity = pub <- "yay, this is a pub"
opening_hours = none <- "oh no it isn't"

Any map, app, geocoder etc that doesn't parse the additional tags is
therefore mislead. It's much more preferable to avoid confusion by
changing the main tag, in this case changing the "shop" tag to
something else (like vacant) or removing it entirely by converting it
into disused:shop tag.

Thanks,
Andy

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
  ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 13:38, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:
>
> Because shop=* indicates it is still open for business.

If it does not do so in "shop=vacant" then it does not do so in
something like "opening_hours = none".

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[David Woolley]

On 25/09/2019 13:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:

   opening_hours = none


I believe the correct syntax would be:

opening_hours=closed

or even

opening_hours=closed "tenant being liquidated"

The evaluator accepts both, although gripes about the lack of public 
holiday rules.  It interprets the latter as:


Facility is always closed in the (near) future, comment: "tenant being 
liquidated"


Whereas it throws out "none" on seeing the second "n".

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Because shop=* indicates it is still open for business.
disused:shop=* indicates it not being used for it's previous purpose.

On 25/09/2019 13:24, Andy Mabbett wrote:


"Closed for business" does not equate to "vacant".

Why not some thing like

opening_hours = none




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Andy Mabbett]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 15:42, Dave F via Talk-GB
 wrote:
>
> Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not administration
> under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the shops have closed.
>
> If your local chippy closed would you leave it mapped as still open for 
> business?

"Closed for business" does not equate to "vacant".

Why not some thing like

   opening_hours = none

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Edward Bainton]

Legal situation of leases, fixtures and fittings as far as I'm aware:
- Lease continues and rent continues to be payable.
- Liquidator can disclaim the lease, bringing all obligations to an end OR
- Once in arrears/other breach of covenant (such as keeping open for
trade), landlord can deem the lease forfeit: property returns to them
- Once owed 7 days' rent (which could be many months hence if paid
quarterly in advance), landlord has right to impound and liquidate fixtures
and fittings to offset their losses, after some procedural safeguards.

But as SK53 says, eyeballs must be best.

Not a lawyer, just a geek who read this up as a charity trustee.
Corrections gladly received.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 09:07, SK53  wrote:

> I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly pronto,
> although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been liquidated I presume
> all leases on retail property are now in default, and consequently null and
> void. Landlords will be anxious to get new tenants as quickly as possible,
> and are likely to clear the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of
> speculation on my part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
> ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether way we
> can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.
>
> Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their shops were
> cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they remained as visible
> 'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time afterwards.
>
> A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes would be
> to only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage disappears. Frederic
> Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by landmark at SotM, and
> prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are often useful landmarks. However,
> I think this is still a luxury for the average mapper trying to keep
> somewhere up-to-date.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill  wrote:
>
>> Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public
>> today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and that
>> may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator sells some or
>> all of them to another company. In the mean time they are still branded and
>> still a landmark of sorts.
>>
>> If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one
>> otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.
>>
>> cheers
>> Chris Hill (chillly)
>>
>> On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>>
>> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself
>>
>> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,  wrote:
>>
>>> I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent since I
>>> wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not all of them had
>>> the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[SK53]

I suspect the fixtures & fittings will be cleared out fairly pronto,
although not the fascia signage. As the firm has been liquidated I presume
all leases on retail property are now in default, and consequently null and
void. Landlords will be anxious to get new tenants as quickly as possible,
and are likely to clear the shops for that reason. (A certain amount of
speculation on my part as I don't know what the actual legal situation with
ownership of fixtures & fittings is in these circumstances). Ether way we
can learn more by some on-the-ground surveys.

Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014, and their shops were
cleared out of fittings pretty rapidly, although they remained as visible
'ghosts'  on high streets for a long time afterwards.

A nice refinement of the shop=X => shop=vacant;disused:shop=yes would be to
only go from name=Y to old_name=Y when the signage disappears. Frederic
Rodrigo talked about pedestrian navigation by landmark at SotM, and
prominent closed shops (and also pubs) are often useful landmarks. However,
I think this is still a luxury for the average mapper trying to keep
somewhere up-to-date.

Jerry

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:54, Chris Hill  wrote:

> Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public
> today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and that
> may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator sells some or
> all of them to another company. In the mean time they are still branded and
> still a landmark of sorts.
>
> If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one
> otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.
>
> cheers
> Chris Hill (chillly)
>
> On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself
>
> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,  wrote:
>
>> I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent since I
>> wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not all of them had
>> the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>>
>>
>> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is it possible to buy any services there?

24 Sep 2019, 15:20 by tonyo...@gmail.com:

>
> I think this is all premature. The shops still have the branding,  they 
> could be taken over by a new company operating as Thomas  Cook. I Think 
> that nothing should be done until there is greater  clarity.
>
>
> Tony Shield
>
>
> TonyS999
>
> On 24/09/2019 14:10, Tadeusz Cantwell  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I have used once shop=vacant before, nowthat you mention it. 
>> Will read up on the wiki to see thedifferent intended uses for them. 
>> The old_name is an interestingoption. 
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:00,  Jez Nicholson <>> 
>> jez.nichol...@gmail.com >> >  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cookmyself 
>>>
>>> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook  maybe
>>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34  Tadeusz Cantwell, <>>> 
>>> t4d...@gmail.com   wrote:
>>>
 I changed the three shops in N.I to  
 disused;shop=travel-agent since I wasn't sure what the  
 best practice was in this case. Not all of them had  the 
 wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?

 Tad 
 ___
  Talk-GB mailing list
   Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
 

>>
>> ___Talk-GB mailing list>> 
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >> 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
>> 
>>___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Philip Barnes]

I am inclined to go with disused:shop to indicate it is no longer a  travel 
agent, but leave the name as it is likely to remain a landmark for sometime.

Our local Toys'R'Us has only recently lost its branding.

Also being careful not to remove his statue from outside Leicester railway  
station, or any other objects named after Leicester's famous son. 

Phil (trigpoint)


On Tuesday, 24 September 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 24.09.19 16:42, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> > Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not
> > administration under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the
> > shops have closed.
> 
> If you walk past your local shop and they are closed, by all means
> delete them or replace with "disused:shop" or "shop=vacant" if you want.
> (Though, if my local chippie had just closed yesterday and there was a
> rumour of someone else taking over the business next week I might be
> tempted to tolerate the incorrectness for a little while.)
> 
> Just don't take the lawnmower over the database and assume that
> everything that is called Thomas Cook is now closed without even looking ;)
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

My OP should indicate I'm aware of variants.
There's the head office, which I believe is still functioning as a part 
of Matterhorn, a bus stop & a statue


DaveF

On 24/09/2019 15:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:


Just don't take the lawnmower over the database and assume that
everything that is called Thomas Cook is now closed without even looking ;)





___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 24.09.19 16:42, Dave F via Talk-GB wrote:
> Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not
> administration under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the
> shops have closed.

If you walk past your local shop and they are closed, by all means
delete them or replace with "disused:shop" or "shop=vacant" if you want.
(Though, if my local chippie had just closed yesterday and there was a
rumour of someone else taking over the business next week I might be
tempted to tolerate the incorrectness for a little while.)

Just don't take the lawnmower over the database and assume that
everything that is called Thomas Cook is now closed without even looking ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Something has happened. The company went into liquidation (not 
administration under which, I believe, they could still operate) & the 
shops have closed.


If your local chippy closed would you leave it mapped as still open for 
business?


On 24/09/2019 14:47, Chris Hill wrote:
Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public 
today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and 
that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator 
sells some or all of them to another company. In the mean time they 
are still branded and still a landmark of sorts.


If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one 
otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, > wrote:


    I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
    since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not
    all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?






___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Chris Hill]

Thomas Cook shops are not vacant. They may not be open to the public 
today, but they may well be reopened by a new owner in the future and 
that may even be under the Thomas Cook brand if the administrator sells 
some or all of them to another company. In the mean time they are still 
branded and still a landmark of sorts.


If a shop is emptied or reused by another firm then change that one 
otherwise I think we should wait for a while to see what happens.


cheers
Chris Hill (chillly)

On 24/09/2019 14:00, Jez Nicholson wrote:

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, > wrote:


I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not
all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

Re: shop=vacant. This is a popular alternative tag, but removes the 
previous usage from the latest version. I found knowing this helpful 
when a new shop replaces it - "There's a new café opening in what used 
to be the flower shop"

How is the name tag dealt with if disused: isn't used?

Tony.
If the shops are closed tagging them as such improves the quality of the 
database. If they are bought out lock, stock & barrel a mass swap over 
edit can be easily executed.


Cheers
Davef

On 24/09/2019 14:20, Tony OSM wrote:
I think this is all premature. The shops still have the branding, they 
could be taken over by a new company operating as Thomas Cook. I Think 
that nothing should be done until there is greater clarity.


Tony Shield

TonyS999

On 24/09/2019 14:10, Tadeusz Cantwell wrote:
Thanks, I have used once shop=vacant before, now that you mention it. 
Will read up on the wiki to see the different intended uses for them. 
The old_name is an interesting option.


On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:00, Jez Nicholson > wrote:


    I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

    You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

    On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell, mailto:t4d...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent
    since I wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case.
    Not all of them had the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better
    way?

    Tad
    ___
    Talk-GB mailing list
    Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
    https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Tadeusz Cantwell]

Thanks, I have used once shop=vacant before, now that you mention it. Will
read up on the wiki to see the different intended uses for them. The
old_name is an interesting option.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 14:00, Jez Nicholson  wrote:

> I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself
>
> You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe
>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,  wrote:
>
>> I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent since I
>> wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not all of them had
>> the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>>
>> Tad
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Subject: Re: Thomas Cook shops

[Jez Nicholson]

I'm a fan of shop=vacant, old_name=Thomas Cook myself

You could argue for not:name=Thomas Cook maybe

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, 13:34 Tadeusz Cantwell,  wrote:

> I changed the three shops in N.I to disused;shop=travel-agent since I
> wasn't sure what the best practice was in this case. Not all of them had
> the wiki links etc. Any advice on a better way?
>
> Tad
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb