Talk:Tag:shop=vehicles

Why not use 2 nodes, or a semicolon?

It's rare to have a shop that sells 2 different type of vehicles, but we commonly encounter book shops which have a cafe, or a combination cafe and bar (coffee by day, alcohol at night). In those cases it is best to map the feature as 2 nodes: shop=book and amenity=cafe, so why not use two nodes with shop=motorcycle and shop=bicycle for example?

If you really want to map a bicycle/motorcycle shop as a single feature, then use shop=bicycle;motorcycle. This at least makes it clear what types of vehicles are sold, because "shop=vehicle" could be "shop=HGV;RV" or "shop=jetski;ATV" - and those are so different that database users will not be interested in all of them at once. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like none of the usage is on shops that sell multiple things anyway. So the whole "This "neutral key" is thought to be used similar as shop=sports" thing in the article is totally wrong. More then likely they were all just miss-tagging and if they are fixed the tag wont have any uses and therefore not be worthy of a proposal or an article. Its probably better people dont use the tag anyway as its not clear. People looking at the tag on the map wont know its for places selling different types of vehicles without looking at the wiki, no where sells both buses and bicycles or trackers and jetskis anyway, let alone the other combinations. Bikes aren't technically vehicles and neither are jet skis really by any laymans definition. And the addition of the "services" tags, like vehicletype:type, needlessly over complicates things and dont make sense. Its almost like this article was just created as a trojan to spread the namespace tags in more places. For reference the tags usage is a trailer manufacterer, RV dealer, tractor dealer, 2 normal car dealers that only seem to sell cars, an ATV repair shop, and 2 forklift dealers that dont seem to sell anything else. Most of are tagging edge cases that dont have established tags. Which is probably why they were miss-tagged with shop=vehicles. None of them warrent it though. So, this tag doesnt have any legitmate usage or use case. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Checking Overpass-turbo, there is just one feature that has been mapped like this page suggests. The others could be mapped with a more specific tag like shop=hgv or shop=trailer etc --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason mentioned on the "deprecated" page why this shouldn't be used. There are shops similar to shop=rental which generally sell vehicles and you can't tell which kind of vehicle is the "leading" one (lots of them in the U.S., huge stores selling any kind of vehicle, even shop=boat and similar). Therefore also the necessity of a namespace to express what's offered. But you both seem to ignore this fact. I'm not sure about the reason, don't you map enuogh or is it an act of sabotage ? In general, that's not democratic to avoid any progress in the wiki (also overviews) based on two user's opinions if potentially millions of users are affected. Thanks for nothing. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete article

Anyone have any objections to this article being deleted since the tag currently has zero usages and only had five at its peak anyway? There's no use in having an article for something that isn't currently and never really was used. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's useful to have this page so that if anyone uses the tag again we can point to this page to explain why it is not a good idea to tag features as shop=vehicle instead of a more specific type of shop, and because shop=vehicles still exists in the database history. Since it is clearly deprecated I don't think the existence of this page will encourage anyone to use the tag. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell RTFM was the only user that ever used it outside of maybe once as a mistake by a random user. Plus, he's the one that created the article, for obviously wrong reasons. So, I highly doubt anyone is clamoring to use the tag or ever will outside of a random user accidentally putting the wrong shop key in Id Editor. It's completely unnecessarily to have articles for tags that have zero uses and have never been used outside of a single person re-tagging things a couple of times so he can justify creating an article to splatter his namespace tagging scheme all over. If it was created by someone that genuinely wanted to document a tag with usage history cool. I'd have zero problem with that, but that's not what this article was created for or is. In the meantime, there's zero uses of it, probably never will be any, and this doesn't really document anything, because the tag doesn't exist. Should there be articles for nonexistent "hoax" tags? I'd say no. It's not like the article couldn't be recreated when or if it ever has any legitimate use anyway. It's massively miss-leading to have a description for it like it was or is a thing to. Like the article says "Rarely, this tag has been used for a shop which sells more than 1 type of vehicle." It's ridiculous to say a tag with only five uses was used "rarely", "mainly", or other type of similar descriptor. Since it was never used in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)