What are the practical differences between a “disused shop” (disused:shop=yes) and a “vacant shop” (shop=vacant)? (At least in how we decide them.)
I am thinking about a shop that had a previous renter/user, but they have already left, and a new renter/user is not there yet. The thing about renting is that, when the lease completes, the renter has to refurbish the shop so that the shop space becomes “blank” just as how it was when the renter/user first took possession of the shop space.
This strongly suggests “vacant shop”; the key is that the previous renter/user had to “clean it up” before they leave. However, this seems to go against the well-accepted lifecycle tagging style which would prefer “disused shop”.
A building, though disused, is still a building=yes, but we add disused=yes alongside it. I think shops should also be like this: a shop space that is currently unused should still be a shop=*, albeit shop=vacant.
Well, shop that was never ever used yet (for example just built) would be less accurately to be referred as disused but there is no practical difference
This should exist only very rarely. The common version would be disused:shop=supermarket - keeping the original type of shop and stating that it is not used any more.
In contrast shop = vacant describes the current state - an empty shop.
Both tags can exist at the same time on the same node, describing the former and current use.
That’s how I think of it, and that’s why I don’t think the analogy with building holds. A building is a physical object, it doesn’t matter if it is used or not. I would be surprised to see a building disappear from a typical map just because it’s empty. But a premises where you can’t buy anything is not a shop under that interpretation, just as most amenities cease to be amenities in a similar situation.
I guess if you think shop= means “a physical space intended to contain a shop”, you could arrive at a different conclusion.
I sometimes use disused:shop=yes for a premises that was not previously mapped in OSM where I don’t know exactly what type of shop it was.
I use and promote disused:shop= / was:shop= over =vacant as they aren’t real shops. highway=construction etc are from history. =vacant is as unneeded as a shop=construction , which in office= would be further confused with actual construction businesses.
Furthermore in practice, I use was:shop= alone when I know it’s closed some time ago, but I can’t or don’t want to check its status exactly now. More complicated semantically, when the new tenant is renovating, it’s neither =vacant nor disused:shop= , but construction:shop= to be precise.
Ireland is full of old empty shops. The main problems are they are too small and the economy in their catchments is too weak, especially compared to modern population patterns, supermarkets, convenience stores and petrol stations. There is a less issue with modern empty shops, but they still exist. Having some vacancy is appropriate, otherwise new businesses would have difficulty setting up.
It is probably unsaid, but there is a real world difference between disused:shop=* and shop=vacant.
This shop (“E. Coghlan”): Mapillary is a disused:shop=. It wouldn’t take much to make it a shop again, but it’s likely to remain as someone’s spare room forever. Using abandoned:shop= would be over-stating matters.
This shop (“café”): Mapillary is a shop=vacant. It is intended that it continue in retail use (and has since been rented by someone).
Side note: shop=vacant and shop=vacuum are spelled very similarly and to be honest, their concept isn’t that far apart either.
Personally I read shop=vacant as “a vacant storefront” or “a vacant store space”. That’s what I use it for, for vacant storefronts on my main street.
Personally I don’t have a problem with it not being “a store” any more than with shop=hairdresser not being a store. It’s OSM English, it’s not literal.
Oops, I’ve been perpetuating the use of this tag due to it being a preset in iD/Go Map!!
Perhaps we should petition the iD devs to include greater support for lifecycle prefixes, although I suppose it may be difficult to explain the concept to newer users.
I think the main problem is a practical one. Conceptual mismatches between English definitions and tags I agree is unimportant.
The practical problem is that a new/simple data consumer will likely assume all shop=*s are actually active shops. Only through experience and greater familiarly with OSM will they learn “oh actually this one value means the exact opposite”.
Probably not helped by the fact that the only mention of shop=vacant on the wiki’s main shop page is buried deeply within an expander and a massive table.
What kind of decisions will data users be making with information “this is some kind of a `shop” that would be problematic to include vacant storefronts?
The only things I’m coming up with is finding nearest bit of civilization in an area, like needing help in case of an emergency: “there are probably people there during local business hours”. Then it would be problematic if the nearest one is a shop=vacant and there’s nothing else around it. (But in that case, the amenity tag is a much bigger issue since it includes some staffed and many unstaffed items.)
On a main street lined with shops I don’t see an issue really.
edited to add: a simple data consumer looking at all shop=* POIs will get:
places where you can pay to get stuff that the shop already has (most of the values)
places where you can pay to get stuff made for order (shop=copyshop, shop=photo_studio)
places where you can only pick up stuff you’ve already ordered (shop=outpost) [1]
places where you can pay to get stuff but have to bring it back later (shop=rental, shop=tool_hire, shop=plant_hire)
places where you can pay to have your appearance changed (shop=hairdresser, shop=beauty)
places where you can pay to have appearance of your clothes changed (shop=laundry)
places where you can pay to have your body touched (shop=massage)
places where you can hear words (shop=psychic)
places where you can pay to have your stuff repaired (shop=car_repair, shop=repair, shop=shoe_repair, shop=truck_repair)
places where you can pay to lease space but only for your stuff (shop=storage_rental)
places where you can pay to lease space including for yourself (shop=estate_agent) [2]
places where you can pay to get stuff or service later (shop=travel_agency, shop=ticket)
places where you can pay to get stuff or service after you die (shop=funeral_directors)
places where you can pay to maybe get some money later (shop=bookmaker, shop=lottery)
places where you can get money now and pay more money later (shop=money_lender)
places where you can get money for your stuff (shop=pawnbroker, shop=gold_buyer)
places that are vacant storefronts (shop=vacant)
places that do not have a shop (shop=no)
… and that’s just the most common 200 values!
OK, this one is apparently because it was lost in translation, but still, it’s there ↩︎
thankfully much less common than office=estate_agent↩︎
Sure, we can deprecate shop=vacant and office=vacant. Just tell me how to affirmatively tag the fact that a storefront is vacant, with a “For Lease” or “For Sale” sign in the window, or just leftover ghost signs. As opposed to the storefront across the street whose occupant hasn’t been mapped yet, or the storefront next door that has yet to gain its first occupant. I don’t even mind if we end up with a single generic tag that doesn’t distinguish between shops and offices. Then I wouldn’t have to decide between the two when a cosmetology school passes to the afterlife.
Yes, StreetComplete asks about the current shop type (or more generally for the current use of the vacant place) for shop=vacant[1], but also for disused:shop=*[2] and e.g. disused:amenity=library[3]
