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
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"
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:'
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
ere 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: T
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
