Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 09:15 Uhr schrieb Warin <[email protected]>:
> On 11/03/19 18:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > most used values in “clothes” are > women > underwear > children > men > wedding > sports > yes > workwear > lingerie > > how would “fashion” relate to this, or “boutique”? The first IMHO refers > to the style of the clothing, the latter to the style they are sold. > > > Humm .. some of that is; > use of the clothing > sex of the user > age of the user > > Fashion? I suppose that is a 'use"? Along with sports, workwear, wedding, > underwear, lingerie? > > So I too would sport migration of shop=fashion to shop=clothing, > clothing=fashion > you have convinced me, if you look at the "clothes" key, the common thing is they are all sub types of shops, so both, boutique and fashion could fit well. The apparent sub-category missing from above would be "general clothes" which would imply only clothing (not a department store), but sections for men, women and children (and probably lingerie and sports, while I have hardly ever seen "workwear" in shops like these). Looking again, there is a category for this with "women;men;children <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/clothes=women%3Bmen%3Bchildren>" 242 times used, "women;men" even has 489. "fashion" is also present with 184 uses (0,9%). https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values This would of course not imply you could get all shops for all kind of clothing with a simple shop=clothes query, because of shoes, sports, leather, etc., but it would solve the issues that have been voiced against boutiques and fashion on the shop level. Looking only at the numbers, it would be harder to support, because shop=fashion has more uses than any single clothes-value. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
