Use disused:shop instead of shop=vacant

[scaidermern]

If a shop is closed StreetComplete removes all tags and adds shop=vacant. This tag has become rather controversial, though. This place is no longer a shop, so it shouldn't get tagged as a shop. Also, every data consumer needs to add a special handling for shop=vacant, i.e. for excluding it when rendering shops. Therefore it would be better to use the lifecycle prefix instead, i.e. disused:shop=<former shop value>.

[andrewharvey]

I agree disused:shop=* is a better tag.

According to taginfo:

20K features tagged disused:shop https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/disused%3Ashop
27K features tagged shop=vacant https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=vacant

So it's clear both are popular options so I don't see any issues with SC changing given these healthy stats of current usage.

[kmpoppe]

Additionally, the information what kind of shop it was doesn't get lost in the object's history but is still visible in the disused state. That might not be helpful for automatic data consumers but for a human contributor.

So: Am in agreement for disused:shop=*.

K

[matkoniecz]

I also would say that disused:shop=yes is preferred over shop=vacant

But note that SC cannot retag old value of shop, as user has no opportunity to confirm/reject that shop type remain match current shop value (shop could disappear, new of different type appear and disappear and then become resurveyed).

Though I would not say that shop=vacant is wrong/controversial. I just think that it is not the preferred variant.

BTW, I tried to find where it is applied to confirm that SC actually uses shop=vacant and at least Github search failed.

[scaidermern]

BTW, I tried to find where it is applied to confirm that SC actually uses shop=vacant and at least Github search failed.

I noticed it in one of my own changesets, created with StreetComplete 30.1 about a month ago.

Here is another example from a different user: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99967499

[kmpoppe]

@matkoniecz

StreetComplete/app/src/main/java/de/westnordost/streetcomplete/quests/shop_type/ShopGoneDialog.kt

Lines 69 to 71 in a8973ae

	when (selectedRadioButtonId) {
	R.id.vacantRadioButton -> {
	onSelectedFeature(mapOf("shop" to "vacant"))

[westnordost]

But note that SC cannot retag old value of shop, as user has no opportunity to confirm/reject that shop type remain match current shop value (shop could disappear, new of different type appear and disappear and then become resurveyed).

Sorry, I did not understand this sentence.

More information:

https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/disused:shop/&***/shop/vacant

On the points made:

• that data consumers need to take special care regarding shop=vacant is a relatively weak point, as this tag has been around for a very long time and there is also shop=no (etc.)
• at the very least, StreetComplete should support (i.e. ask for) disused:shop=* too
• shop=vacant is also used for non-shops. For example if there was a bakery before, amenity=bakery would turn into shop=vacant. Is this possible with the disused scheme as well?

[scaidermern]

On the points made:

* that data consumers need to take special care regarding `shop=vacant` is a relatively weak point, as this tag has been around for a very long time and there is also `shop=no` (etc.)

While shop=no might be in use (currently 3k occurrences according to taginfo) I fail to see why this should be a valid tag. There is also no documentation at the Wiki.

* at the very least, StreetComplete should support (i.e. ask for) `disused:shop=*` too

I think it already does that. StreetComplete already asks if disused:shop=* is still vacant, if I recall correctly.

* `shop=vacant` is also used for non-shops. For example if there was a bakery before, `amenity=bakery` would turn into `shop=vacant`. Is this possible with the disused scheme as well?

Sure. amenity=bakery will become disused:amenity=bakery. See lifecycle prefix in the OSM wiki for more details.

[westnordost]

While shop=no might be in use (currently 3k occurrences according to taginfo) I fail to see why this should be a valid tag. There is also no documentation at the Wiki.

No idea why it exists. Maybe for something like craft=* where one would usually assume that it is (also) a shop but it isn't?

[matkoniecz]

While shop=no might be in use (currently 3k occurrences according to taginfo) I fail to see why this should be a valid tag. There is also no documentation at the Wiki.

? See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=no#wiki that links to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ashop%3Dno

(it is primarily used on amenity=fuel to indicate that it has no matching shop)

Sorry, I did not understand this sentence.

There could be following sequence of events

• shop=greengrocer exists and becomes mapped in OSM
• shop=greengrocer is replaced by shop=pets - and OSM is not updated
• shop=pets gets closed and is now vacant - and OSM is not updated
• mapper with StreetComplete visits and marks shop=greengrocer as vacant - both shop=vacant and disused:shop=yes are correct, but disused:shop=greengrocer would be wrong (and even disused:shop=pets could be wrong of all traces of that shop type are removed)

[scaidermern]

While shop=no might be in use (currently 3k occurrences according to taginfo) I fail to see why this should be a valid tag. There is also no documentation at the Wiki.

? See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=no#wiki that links to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ashop%3Dno

(it is primarily used on amenity=fuel to indicate that it has no matching shop)

You are correct, I failed to find this entry. However this wiki page states "Tag shop=no was used [...]". It also doesn't get mentioned at the wiki page for amenity=fuel.

[westnordost]

@matkoniecz Hm well, ok I think this is a rather minor problem though.

[scaidermern]

There could be following sequence of events

* `shop=greengrocer` exists and becomes mapped in OSM

* `shop=greengrocer` is replaced by `shop=pets` - and OSM is not updated

* `shop=pets` gets closed and is now vacant - and OSM is not updated

* mapper with StreetComplete visits and marks `shop=greengrocer` as vacant - both `shop=vacant` and `disused:shop=yes` are correct, but `disused:shop=greengrocer` would be wrong (and even  `disused:shop=pets` could be wrong of all traces of that shop type are removed)

Well, disused:shop=greengrocer is a correct as shop=greengrocer has been while the shop actually was a pet shop. We don't introduce any new error with this scheme. The error is caused by wrong data in the first place. Wrong data doesn't automagically become correct data.

[kmpoppe]

While my original argument was, that I wanted to keep the original shop=* and just make it disused: I can somewhat follow @matkoniecz in that the state might not be correct in OSM anyway, so just disusing it wouldn't change much about that being incorrect in the first place.

What if we changed shop=vacant to disused:shop=yes? That value is used 4 times as often as the next value clothes and is also the first thing mentioned on the wiki page as the alternative?

[westnordost]

Streetcomplete doesn't usually "upgrade" tags as long as they are not deprecated.

…

On April 1, 2021 8:43:05 AM GMT+02:00, Kai Michael Poppe ***@***.***> wrote: While my original argument was, that I wanted to keep the original `shop=*` and just make it `disused:` I can somewhat follow @matkoniecz in that the state might not be correct in OSM anyway, so just disusing it wouldn't change much about that being incorrect in the first place. What if we changed shop=vacant to disused:shop=yes? That value is used 4 times as often as the next value clothes and is also the first thing mentioned on the wiki page as the alternative? -- You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #2707 (comment)

-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

[rhhsm]

I think the difference between the two options is small and often irrelevant: maybe a vacant shop is more likely to be re-purposed again as a shop (it may have a "for rent" sign on it), while a disused shop is more likely to be on its way to become an abandoned shop? What is more important is that SC can handle new purposes of a vacant shop, which may be another shop, but also a craft, an amenity (bakery, restaurant), an office, a dentist, etc.

[andrewharvey]

maybe a vacant shop is more likely to be re-purposed again as a shop (it may have a "for rent" sign on it), while a disused shop is more likely to be on its way to become an abandoned shop?

I use both tags shop=vacant and diused:shop=yes as meaning the exact same thing. The shop is empty currently but just needs a new tenant and fit out.

[matkoniecz]

Well, disused:shop=greengrocer is a correct as shop=greengrocer has been while the shop actually was a pet shop. We don't introduce any new error with this scheme. The error is caused by wrong data in the first place. Wrong data doesn't automagically become correct data.

Yes, but disused:shop=yes avoids introducing this mistake, that cannot be caught by user.

added the enhancement label 6 days ago

I guess that it means that if someone cares about it they can write a PR, I am doing it right now :)