Opened 10 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#11245 closed enhancement (fixed)
[PATCH] Clothes tag
| Reported by: | Larry0ua | Owned by: | team |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 20.07 |
| Component: | Internal preset | Version: | |
| Keywords: | clothes | Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
As described in osmwiki:Key:clothes, I've updated the defaultpresets.xml with clothes=* values
Attachments (1)
Change History (20)
by , 10 years ago
| Attachment: | clothes.diff added |
|---|
comment:1 by , 10 years ago
| Keywords: | preset removed |
|---|---|
| Milestone: | → 15.03 |
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 10 years ago
comment:3 by , 10 years ago
Replying to skyper:
The common gender tags are access tags
I think male=yes|no would be an access tag, but not clothes=male|female. clothes is a semicolon-seperated tag anyway (and should be a multiselect instead of a combo).
comment:4 by , 10 years ago
| Milestone: | 15.03 → 15.04 |
|---|
follow-up: 7 comment:6 by , 10 years ago
Replying to Klumbumbus:
In 8187/josm:
Still not happy as a semicolon-separated tag is interpreted as logical OR and not as an AND.
How to tag shops which offer different cloth for different gender/age ?
follow-up: 8 comment:7 by , 10 years ago
Replying to skyper:
Still not happy as a semicolon-separated tag is interpreted as logical OR and not as an AND.
I know only tags, where the semicolon means AND.
- ref=B100;B101
- destination=Berlin;Hamburg
- turn:lanes=left|through;right
- sport=tennis;badminton
- opening_hours=Mo-Fr...; Sa...
- clothes=woman;babies
follow-up: 9 comment:8 by , 10 years ago
Replying to Klumbumbus:
Replying to skyper:
Still not happy as a semicolon-separated tag is interpreted as logical OR and not as an AND.
I know only tags, where the semicolon means AND.
- ref=B100;B101
- destination=Berlin;Hamburg
- turn:lanes=left|through;right
- sport=tennis;badminton
You are right, I somehow twisted my head to much. Looking at it from the wrong side.
- opening_hours=Mo-Fr...; Sa...
Wrong example, as the semi-colon has as special meaning by overruling any previous value.
- clothes=woman;babies
How about clothes=babies;suits ? Only suits for babies ? Or clothes=children;men;suits;wedding what does it mean and how to tag:
clothes:women=wedding;underware + clothes:men=suits
follow-up: 10 comment:9 by , 10 years ago
Replying to skyper:
How about clothes=babies;suits ? Only suits for babies ?
No, clothes for babies and suits.
Or clothes=children;men;suits;wedding what does it mean and how to tag:
clothes for children and clothes for men and suits and weddingclothes.
I understand what you mean ,different "classes" in one key. But I think this is not such a big problem for this simple key.
clothes:women=wedding;underware + clothes:men=suits
Yes, if you want to tag that in a shop the wedding clothes and the underware is only wor woman and the suits are only for men, you cannot do this with the simple clothes tag. But this is already pretty specialized tagging.
btw. woman is the most used value and men the 3rd most used value for clothes.
comment:10 by , 10 years ago
Replying to Klumbumbus:
I understand what you mean ,different "classes" in one key. But I think this is not such a big problem for this simple key.
We should not introduce problematic tags with low numbers but rather try to find a better solution and mean-while offer problematic tags only in external presets.
It is much more work to change it after it gets popular.
clothes:women=wedding;underware + clothes:men=suits
Yes, if you want to tag that in a shop the wedding clothes and the underware is only wor woman and the suits are only for men, you cannot do this with the simple
clothestag. But this is already pretty specialized tagging.
btw. woman is the most used value and men the 3rd most used value for clothes.
Currently, according to taginfo only around 1% of almost 100000 shop=clothes are combined with clothes=*. I am not sure which other main tags are combined with the rest (4000) as there are only ~600 shop=fashion.
So the tag is not in major use especially with shop=clothes and if introduced it should be added to more presets than only shop=clothes.
comment:11 by , 10 years ago
| Resolution: | fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
OK, I will remove it again. Or are there more opinions about this topic?
comment:12 by , 10 years ago
I am afraid that only reverting the change is not enough. Initiating a tagging discussion outside of this ticket is required. Anyone?
comment:14 by , 10 years ago
| Milestone: | 15.04 |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | → wontfix |
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Closed for now. Please reopen once tagging is clear.
comment:17 by , 4 years ago
| Milestone: | → 20.07 |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | wontfix |
| Status: | closed → reopened |
The tag usage of clothes grows nearly exponentially. Time to add it to the preset again.
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/clothes/
comment:18 by , 4 years ago
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|
The problem is still the same, a mixture of sex and type of clothes in one key.
Do not like the gender values within the same tag. Does not really fit and cries out for problems. The common gender tags are access tags so either
gender=female/male/unisexorclothes:female/male=yes/only/nocould work. Similar is true for age e.g.clothes:age=0-2orclothes:baby/child=yes/only/nobut I think this belongs on tagging@.