On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 19:43, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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). > clothes=general or clothes=yes? > 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 > & there's also myriads of men;women;children, women;children;men, women;babies;children & every other possible combination you could ever imagine (or create by a typo!) > 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. > Yeah, 230k shop=clothes but only 20k of all "types" of clothes combined, then 7000 =fashion & 15000 =boutique, but from the comments here, you have to wonder how many of those "boutiques" are actually selling high-level (very expensive!) clothing? Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
