On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:50, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. >> >> while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you >> could tell from seeing a shop=* tag that consumption is never allowed at >> all. At least in Germany for some kind of shop, e.g. shop=bakery or >> shop=butcher, there could be a few tables where you can stand (or sit, but >> if it’s for sitting it would be called a cafe) and eat things that you >> bought without it necessarily becoming a „cafe“ or fast food, nor an >> amenity=bakery > > We're into cultural edge cases here.
Not surprising since your "shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises" is a very your-culture-centric view on things. > There are places with lots of seats for consumption on the premises. And > places > with no seats at all for consumption off the premises. Calling both of those > amenities is not helpful. Calling both of those shops is not helpful. We > clearly > need both amenity and shop IF both of those types of establishment exist for > bubble tea. I disagree with the premise that consumption on premises is to be a divider. Making two tags for the same kind of shop/service depending if there's a bench or not seems bad to me. There's supermarkets around here with a lunch bar where you can order some hot food and sit and eat it - would you make them an amenity too? I think we should not use "consumption on premises" as a criterion for shop/amenity split. If you disagree, please explain how the existing tags shop=hairdresser and amenity=pharmacy fit into your proposed tagging scheme. --Jarek _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
