Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?
Here in Portugal, is very common for Town Halls to promote graffiti festivals, with buildings and public spaces assigning spaces where urban artists can do their artworks. There are world renowned Portuguese graffiters thanks to this subculture that it's present in almost every Portuguese city. (Vhils is just one of them -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vhils) So, we could suggest that a notable graffiti should be a recognizable and authorized painting, because that would imply that it's both notable and durable. It should also be a work of art that it's "naturally" inserted in the urban landscape, without being mere vandalism or something that could disappear in days. Às 13:24 de 02/07/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu: sent from a phone On 2. Jul 2020, at 16:12, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: If this was a monument, what would we consider a much taller sculpture yes, I’ve also some examples https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Treptower_Ehrenmal,_Tag_des_Sieges_2015,_01.jpg#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocaust_Memorial_Berlin.JPG#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barbarossa_Turm.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laboe-1936-HWI01.jpg#mw-jump-to-license https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/ArcoCostantinoRoma.jpg/400px-ArcoCostantinoRoma.jpg not sure if this qualifies as well: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kheops-Pyramid.jpg#mw-jump-to-license Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:19, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:22, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 05:47, Paul Allen wrote: >> > I think that coffee_shop and teahouse are not cuisines. I'm not convinced >> > inventing drinks=* to show what they focus on is a good idea and that >> > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of the >> > place doesn't give it away). >> >> I strongly disagree and would much prefer a newly specified drinks=* >> tag, or an "abused" cuisine tag, over a free-text description field. >> This is because the former is much more reliable for sake of machine >> readability (and also leaves description for anything else a mapper >> might like to note). This would be doubly the case if we also adopt >> this for espresso takeaway bars (as shown in Tan's instagram first >> link) with no seating or very limited seating. > > That's what happens when I try to avoid upsetting people by > suggesting a compromise. :) > > I think there is only one good way of handling a drink that is the > primary focus: make it the only drink that has drink:*=yes. As far > as the user can tell from the map, that's all the shop sells. No, that's not the intended purpose of this use of drink=*/cuisine=*. It's to specify the general type of the shop=drinks. We don't map a shop=greengrocer with extra tags if they happen to stock a shelf of canned food in the back too, it's the general category that's important. > ... > I think common sense has to play a part here. We don't > list the entire inventory of every shop we map because > it's impossible. Somewhere with a coffee machine that's > a hybrid of a church organ and a steam train may also sell > tea and juice, but probably not in anywhere near as many > varieties/sizes/combinations, so they can be omitted or > relegated to the description. Or we go the other way and > list every drink sold by a pub, and all the flavours of all > the snacks it sells, and the flavours and textures of the > condoms sold by the vending machine in the toilets > (and we then need a way of specifying which flavour of > condom the vending machine focuses on). I think common sense has to play a part here. Focus on the main category of the shop. A bubble tea shop is not at all like other kinds of tea shops, and fairly substantially different from other kinds of drink takeaway shops, and that's why there's a need to tag it separately. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 19:36, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote: > > The proposal would introduce a new tag (maybe amenity=drinks or > amenity=takeout_drinks or what). This kind of places sell beverages mostly > with takeaway paper or plastic cup, people can drink in their home or > office after buying. > > This kind of places may focus on different drinks: coffee/iced > tea/juice/bubble tea/etc... We can use the existing cuisine=* tag or a new > tag for example drinks=juice to distinguish what they focus on, and > drink:*=yes to show if a shop provides a kind of drink. That sounds good, but I'd suggest that it should be a shop=drinks, rather than an amenity=, together with either cuisine= or drinks=whatever. (BTW do anyone thinks cuisine=coffee_shop or cuisine=teahouse are weird as > me?) > Yep! :-) Simple cuisine= (or drinks=) coffee & tea sounds *much* better! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:19 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I > write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off > ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all the way back at > the Sitterly Road overpass, and the on ramp doesn't fully merge until > just before the emergency vehicle turn-around only slightly north of > said overpass. Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these > stretches. > > What is the correct way to model this? > It's hard for me to explain so try the example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87518597#map=14/42.8442/-73.7720 on for size? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?
I believe the correct way is mapping it with 4 lanes where the 4th lane begins (with turn=|||slight_right) and put the motorway_junction where it splits. Then, the ramp gets 2 lanes and the main road 3. Às 17:38 de 03/07/2020, Matthew Woehlke escreveu: On 03/07/2020 16.28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 3. Jul 2020, at 22:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches. What is the correct way to model this? split the highway so that each way had the same number of lanes, then fix the lanes (4 rather than 3) where it applies I'm not sure what the first half of that is saying. Are you agreeing with my proposed mechanism? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?
On 03/07/2020 16.28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 3. Jul 2020, at 22:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches. What is the correct way to model this? split the highway so that each way had the same number of lanes, then fix the lanes (4 rather than 3) where it applies I'm not sure what the first half of that is saying. Are you agreeing with my proposed mechanism? -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Intersections redux
Intersections are a problem. Currently, complex intersections tend to be modeled as a mesh of overlapping roads, which looks okay for rendering, but can cause problems for routing. There is a long-standing proposal for an intersection relation — https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/intersection — but this seems to have stalled without going anywhere. I would like to propose an alternative. Firstly, add a tag (probably 'intersection=yes') that annotates that a way is part of an intersection. This has two important effects. First, such a way never has signage associated with it, solving the 'too many lights' problem (i.e. lights on one of the way's end nodes don't apply to the 'intersection=yes' way). Second, it tells routing engines to collapse the end nodes of the way into a single node for graph traversal purposes. Secondly, add an 'intersection' way type which can be used for routing. This would be typically not rendered, but would be as a mechanism to sanely map lane assignments. These would form a complete mesh at intersections, and would typically not be rendered. For example: | | A ---+-+--- |X| ---+-+--- | | B The 'X' represents two new ways connecting the four nodes of the intersection and representing turn lanes. Again, these are NOT for rendering; they exist so that lane connections can be assigned in a rational manner. (But alternative suggestions are welcomed!) For example, a lane relation needs to exist to map lanes of A to lanes of B, but routing them through the top-right node doesn't really make sense, plus doing so would require three relations, while the proposed 'intersection' way requires only two and produces a much more reasonable path. -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?
sent from a phone > On 3. Jul 2020, at 22:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches. > > What is the correct way to model this? split the highway so that each way had the same number of lanes, then fix the lanes (4 rather than 3) where it applies Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?
Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all the way back at the Sitterly Road overpass, and the on ramp doesn't fully merge until just before the emergency vehicle turn-around only slightly north of said overpass. Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches. What is the correct way to model this? I'm thinking, for the off ramp, the `highway:motorway_junction` should be pushed back, the relevant segment made 4-lane, and possibly get `change:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no`; the location where the ramp splits from the freeway should be left as-is (currently where the ramp actually separates from the freeway). For the on ramp, make the relevant segment 4-lane with `change:lanes=yes|yes|not_right|yes`. Is that the sensible thing to do, or is there another way? -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
在 2020年7月3日週五 22:32，Paul Allen 寫道： > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:43, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of >> the >> place doesn't give it away). >> >> No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide >> consistent data. It is always preferable to use a new, more specific tag. >> > > Description is a very good idea if you think that mapping things down to > that > level of detail is silly. If it concentrates on 79 flavours of coffee with > 200 different toppings but also sells one type of tea, map just > drink:coffee=yes. If you want people to know they can also get a bad > cup of tea there, with absolutely no choice, the description is fine. > > The problem with a tag to specify what kind of drink it focuses on > is that it breaks when the place focuses on two types of drink. What > if there is an incredible variety of teas and coffees but only one > flavour of juice? What if there are a lot of coffees and a lot of > juices but the tea comes from the cheapest tea bags > available that have long passed their shelf life? > > So now we need a tag that can handle multiple foci. OK, > semicolon-delimited list. But now it turns out that they > do a lot of types of coffee, a lot of types of tea, five flavours > of juice but only one flavour of carbonated drink? So now we > need a tag for an intermediate-level of focus. > > Ah, but some of the coffee is good coffee but some of it is bad > coffee. So now we need to tag the individual flavours of coffee > so we can specify a quality rating for them. > > This is getting very silly. > > Do they sell coffee? Yes or no. Do they sell tea? Yes or no. Do they > sell juice? Yes or no. Are there are large range of coffees? Goes in > the description. > > I don't mind micromapping, but I draw the line at picomapping. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > 在 2020年7月3日週五 22:32，Paul Allen 寫道： > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:43, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of >> the >> place doesn't give it away). >> >> No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide >> consistent data. It is always preferable to use a new, more specific tag. >> > > Description is a very good idea if you think that mapping things down to > that > level of detail is silly. If it concentrates on 79 flavours of coffee with > 200 different toppings but also sells one type of tea, map just > drink:coffee=yes. If you want people to know they can also get a bad > cup of tea there, with absolutely no choice, the description is fine. > > The problem with a tag to specify what kind of drink it focuses on > is that it breaks when the place focuses on two types of drink. What > if there is an incredible variety of teas and coffees but only one > flavour of juice? What if there are a lot of coffees and a lot of > juices but the tea comes from the cheapest tea bags > available that have long passed their shelf life? > > So now we need a tag that can handle multiple foci. OK, > semicolon-delimited list. But now it turns out that they > do a lot of types of coffee, a lot of types of tea, five flavours > of juice but only one flavour of carbonated drink? So now we > need a tag for an intermediate-level of focus. > > Ah, but some of the coffee is good coffee but some of it is bad > coffee. So now we need to tag the individual flavours of coffee > so we can specify a quality rating for them. > > This is getting very silly. > > Do they sell coffee? Yes or no. Do they sell tea? Yes or no. Do they > sell juice? Yes or no. Are there are large range of coffees? Goes in > the description. > > I don't mind micromapping, but I draw the line at picomapping. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > 在 2020年7月3日週五 22:32，Paul Allen 寫道： > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:43, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of >> the >> place doesn't give it away). >> >> No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide >> consistent data. It is always preferable to use a new, more specific tag. >> > > Description is a very good idea if you think that mapping things down to > that > level of detail is silly. If it concentrates on 79 flavours of coffee with > 200 different toppings but also sells one type of tea, map just > drink:coffee=yes. If you want people to know they can also get a bad > cup of tea there, with absolutely no choice, the description is fine. > > The problem with a tag to specify what kind of drink it focuses on > is that it breaks when the place focuses on two types of drink. What > if there is an incredible
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:43, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of > the > place doesn't give it away). > > No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide > consistent data. It is always preferable to use a new, more specific tag. > Description is a very good idea if you think that mapping things down to that level of detail is silly. If it concentrates on 79 flavours of coffee with 200 different toppings but also sells one type of tea, map just drink:coffee=yes. If you want people to know they can also get a bad cup of tea there, with absolutely no choice, the description is fine. The problem with a tag to specify what kind of drink it focuses on is that it breaks when the place focuses on two types of drink. What if there is an incredible variety of teas and coffees but only one flavour of juice? What if there are a lot of coffees and a lot of juices but the tea comes from the cheapest tea bags available that have long passed their shelf life? So now we need a tag that can handle multiple foci. OK, semicolon-delimited list. But now it turns out that they do a lot of types of coffee, a lot of types of tea, five flavours of juice but only one flavour of carbonated drink? So now we need a tag for an intermediate-level of focus. Ah, but some of the coffee is good coffee but some of it is bad coffee. So now we need to tag the individual flavours of coffee so we can specify a quality rating for them. This is getting very silly. Do they sell coffee? Yes or no. Do they sell tea? Yes or no. Do they sell juice? Yes or no. Are there are large range of coffees? Goes in the description. I don't mind micromapping, but I draw the line at picomapping. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 14:22, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 05:47, Paul Allen wrote: > > > I think that coffee_shop and teahouse are not cuisines. I'm not > convinced > > inventing drinks=* to show what they focus on is a good idea and that > > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of > the > > place doesn't give it away). > > I strongly disagree and would much prefer a newly specified drinks=* > tag, or an "abused" cuisine tag, over a free-text description field. > This is because the former is much more reliable for sake of machine > readability (and also leaves description for anything else a mapper > might like to note). This would be doubly the case if we also adopt > this for espresso takeaway bars (as shown in Tan's instagram first > link) with no seating or very limited seating. > That's what happens when I try to avoid upsetting people by suggesting a compromise. :) I think there is only one good way of handling a drink that is the primary focus: make it the only drink that has drink:*=yes. As far as the user can tell from the map, that's all the shop sells. Now you're going to tell me they sell other stuff too. To which I counter, maybe it's the other stuff I'm looking for. And you're going to counter that by saying that they're really good at the stuff that is their primary focus and bad at the others. And I respond that if they're so bad at the others it's better we don't list them. You come back by saying that now you think about it, they're pretty good at all of them and I respond by saying there's no need to focus on one of them. I think common sense has to play a part here. We don't list the entire inventory of every shop we map because it's impossible. Somewhere with a coffee machine that's a hybrid of a church organ and a steam train may also sell tea and juice, but probably not in anywhere near as many varieties/sizes/combinations, so they can be omitted or relegated to the description. Or we go the other way and list every drink sold by a pub, and all the flavours of all the snacks it sells, and the flavours and textures of the condoms sold by the vending machine in the toilets (and we then need a way of specifying which flavour of condom the vending machine focuses on). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
> description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of the place doesn't give it away). No, that is a bad idea. The "description" field does not provide consistent data. It is always preferable to use a new, more specific tag. One of the basic ideas of OpenStreetMap is "Any Tags You Like", because we want mappers to invent new tags when there isn't a way to tag some specific, verifiable information about a feature. The key "cuisine" is currently used for a number of things: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cuisine The values "coffee_shop" and "bubble_tea" are both documented, "cuisine=juice" has been used over 1400 times, and "cuisine=tea" is also in use a few hundred times. I think using that key is reasonable, though developing more specific tags is also an option. – Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 2:48 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:36, 德泉 談 via Tagging > wrote: > >> >> This kind of places may focus on different drinks: coffee/iced >> tea/juice/bubble tea/etc... We can use the existing cuisine=* tag or a new >> tag for example drinks=juice to distinguish what they focus on, and >> drink:*=yes to show if a shop provides a kind of drink. (BTW do anyone >> thinks cuisine=coffee_shop or cuisine=teahouse are weird as me?) >> > > I think that coffee_shop and teahouse are not cuisines. I'm not convinced > inventing drinks=* to show what they focus on is a good idea and that > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of the > place doesn't give it away). > >> >> I'm not sure if a juice stand may be located in a outlet or amusement >> park should tagged as this tag. > > > I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:36, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote: > I think I may redraft a feature proposal for the shop focusing providing > takeout beverages or only have very limit seats and merge the bubble tea shop > proposal into it. Right now we have amenity=cafe and shop=beverages for those > sell drinks. Actually I'm not sure that if the feature of a amenity=cafe is > providing a cozy social/rest space or not. But it seems like both of the two > tags are not suitable for shops I want to map. > > The proposal would introduce a new tag (maybe amenity=drinks or > amenity=takeout_drinks or what). This kind of places sell beverages mostly > with takeaway paper or plastic cup, people can drink in their home or office > after buying. > > But after this proposal we can merged the bubble tea proposal and the juice > bar proposal > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Juice_bar) to clarify > the tagging scheme of these shops. This sounds good to me. Thank you for sticking with this! On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 05:47, Paul Allen wrote: >> This kind of places may focus on different drinks: coffee/iced >> tea/juice/bubble tea/etc... We can use the existing cuisine=* tag or a new >> tag for example drinks=juice to distinguish what they focus on, and >> drink:*=yes to show if a shop provides a kind of drink. (BTW do anyone >> thinks cuisine=coffee_shop or cuisine=teahouse are weird as me?) > > I think that coffee_shop and teahouse are not cuisines. I'm not convinced > inventing drinks=* to show what they focus on is a good idea and that > description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of the > place doesn't give it away). I strongly disagree and would much prefer a newly specified drinks=* tag, or an "abused" cuisine tag, over a free-text description field. This is because the former is much more reliable for sake of machine readability (and also leaves description for anything else a mapper might like to note). This would be doubly the case if we also adopt this for espresso takeaway bars (as shown in Tan's instagram first link) with no seating or very limited seating. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 10:36, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote: > > This kind of places may focus on different drinks: coffee/iced > tea/juice/bubble tea/etc... We can use the existing cuisine=* tag or a new > tag for example drinks=juice to distinguish what they focus on, and > drink:*=yes to show if a shop provides a kind of drink. (BTW do anyone > thinks cuisine=coffee_shop or cuisine=teahouse are weird as me?) > I think that coffee_shop and teahouse are not cuisines. I'm not convinced inventing drinks=* to show what they focus on is a good idea and that description=* might be a better way of dealing with it (if the name of the place doesn't give it away). > > I'm not sure if a juice stand may be located in a outlet or amusement park > should tagged as this tag. I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea
I think I may redraft a feature proposal for the shop focusing providing takeout beverages or only have very limit seats and merge the bubble tea shop proposal into it. Right now we have amenity=cafe and shop=beverages for those sell drinks. Actually I'm not sure that if the feature of a amenity=cafe is providing a cozy social/rest space or not. But it seems like both of the two tags are not suitable for shops I want to map. The proposal would introduce a new tag (maybe amenity=drinks or amenity=takeout_drinks or what). This kind of places sell beverages mostly with takeaway paper or plastic cup, people can drink in their home or office after buying. This kind of places may focus on different drinks: coffee/iced tea/juice/bubble tea/etc... We can use the existing cuisine=* tag or a new tag for example drinks=juice to distinguish what they focus on, and drink:*=yes to show if a shop provides a kind of drink. (BTW do anyone thinks cuisine=coffee_shop or cuisine=teahouse are weird as me?) Also, some of places may provides 3 or 4 seats. The seats is mainly for thirsty customers to take a rest and have some drinks. But they wouldn't spend more than half an hour in the shop, let alone meeting or working in the shop, which make these not a amenity=cafe. We can still use capacity=* for tagging the number of seats. There are some photos to show the concept of this proposal, all of these shop is located in my hometown: https://www.instagram.com/p/BtsEiIBBX8C/ a shop sells coffee for the workers to drink on their office hours https://www.instagram.com/p/CA27iqYpvwz/ they focus on selling plum green tea but also selling bubble teas https://www.instagram.com/p/BS6DKVuF7IZ/ most of their drinks are juice, sells juice tea too. and some shop is in the department store sorry for no pictures I found, anyone who have similar example of this kind of shop can also add the content. I'm not sure if a juice stand may be located in a outlet or amusement park should tagged as this tag. But after this proposal we can merged the bubble tea proposal and the juice bar proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Juice_bar) to clarify the tagging scheme of these shops. -Tan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
