I took the liberty of documenting amenity=warehouse as a tag for dark stores: Tag:amenity=warehouse - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Feel free to add information if you think that something is missing.
OT: A supermarket sells what would normally be sold in discrete shops: bread, meat, fish, vegetables, beverages, flowers, tobacco, post stamps and so on.
+1, this is also not integrating well with the established tagging (also “industrial”). These look like keys to specify a more detailed landuse. Feature tags for this kind of thing are probably most fitting into “man_made” (e.g. man_made=works).
It could be “man_made=warehouse” for the function of storing. Subtags could specify the kind of warehouse and its purpose.
man_made is mostly used for infrastructure objects and industry-related structures, so to me this key seems like a poor fit for a place for warehouses from which goods are delivered directly to people’s homes. Nonetheless it’s a decent suggestion.
1 Like
These “online grocery ‘dark’ stores” are not an amenity=*, they are not a shop=*, they are not a man_made=* anything (they are a business, not a hunk of infrastructure), they should not be “in a landuse=retail zone.” If anybody disagrees with any of that, please step right up and defend your position with a cogent argument.
They might be a shop=outpost if one is allowed to “pick up” an order placed online (though I think this is likely the exception, not the rule) and they probably are not an industrial=warehouse (as a generic tag which is a more fitting tag on the building rather than the business node discussed here).
All that said, I continue to believe that a new, unique tag (storage_shop=grocery, anybody?) is likely best suited for these new(er), unique entities. Wikipedia has created the Dark store article for them, OSM can take the hint that we shouldn’t try to shoehorn these businesses into existing tags, doing semantic somersaults and tag-stretching backflips as we attempt to do so. I’m glad to see lively discussion about it, but what emerges is my first paragraph in this post as “let’s not do these.”
I’m all for conflation into an existing semantic namespace when it is sensible and consensus emerges it is correct to do so. That isn’t so here, meaning we likely need a new, unique key/tag for these. Let’s coin one (or agree on storage_shop=grocery or posit another, better one), decide on decent values (like yes for the “little known about” ones, grocery — for sure — and maybe office_supplies for those places which scooter-deliver you ink cartridges and a box of paper) so we can wiki-document this.
If it isn’t industrial, don’t use that. If you wouldn’t (as you “shouldn’t”) characterize it as a warehouse, don’t. (Although you might additionally do so, as it more-or-less IS one). If it has nothing to do with logistics, forget that tag or value. We might need more discussion on whether shop=outpost could be an additional tag, it seems there remain some wrinkles yet to be ironed out here, as that tag seems both too specific (what if pick-up isn’t allowed? then the shop=outpost tag isn’t correct) and too general (is that only what it is?). The delivery=* key is crucial: a typical value of only seems required, but let’s ponder others. Specifying whether pick_up is allowed might be “strongly recommended” but it might not always be known. Thanks to OP for updating our shop=outpost wiki, though while that’s a good start at this, I don’t think it is quite sufficient, as I continue to believe we need a new, unique key.
2 Likes
they are not a
shop=*
They might be a
shop=outpost
Um?
(Also, as ever: the lingua franca of OSM tagging is British English and this sort of operation is not an “outpost” in British English.)
1 Like
I know, Richard. These ambiguities come into sharp focus with a question like that.
If it IS truly a shop=outpost, tag it so, and don’t think of it as a “dark store.” An outpost allows pick-up, I doubt most dark stores do. That’s a fundamental difference and why I think that while the OP’s improvements to our outpost wiki are helpful, they are not sufficient to describe these dark stores. That’s why I think we need a new key.
| stevea
July 19 |
- | - |
All that said, I continue to believe that a new, unique tag (
storage_shop=grocery, anybody?) is likely best suited for these new(er), unique entities.
A new key would be fine as well, but IMHO they could also be seen as warehouses / small logistics facilities. many logistics facilities are tagged as other features or as subtypes of industrial landuse and specific tagging is not very diffuse, although there are some ideas about logistics in the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:company%3Dlogistics
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Key:logistics
Maybe the dark shops could fit there?
1 Like
Just as those wiki articles describe quite-specific “sub-semantics” regarding logistics (and their concomitant wiki articles, links to Wikipedia articles, specific definitions required…), a new key/tag for “dark shops” (like storage_shop=grocery) could be integrated into the greater “schema” of both company=logistics and the Proposal for the Key logistics=*. This assumes the creation of the / a new key/tag (like storage_shop=grocery), and then “back-linking” this into those two logistics-related wiki.
Let’s be clear: dark stores are a “new thing,” which strongly implies a new key/tag. (Maybe not strictly required, but I haven’t seen an argument that we can successfully avoid a new tag quite made yet). Yes, this new key/tag overlaps with the greater concept of “logistics” (which is in earlier stages of being semantically developed in OSM), but that’s OK, we can point the wikis to each other to make this clear, sharpening up any additional (likely minor) tagging tweaks that might be required.
So, @dieterdreist, we are effectively “both correct” in a sense. Hopefully, others reading this topic begin to nod heads, and see other heads nodding.
And again, if you think it is correct to tag with warehouse (on the building) or logistics (as another tag on the business node of the dark store, because it ALSO does that), that’s fine: add those tags.
It seems like we’re getting closer, everyone.
I also think we’re onto something here. I suggest that we group the small and large warehouses under the same (new?) key, at least the ones that deliver to stores, as those are not part of the industrial sector. Based on my observations, a lot of big warehouses are currently tagged simply as building + name (which should arguably be brand), often inside a landuse=commercial, so we won’t disrupt much by adding a new tag for these and we can actually achieve an improvement on this front together with a new tag for the dark stores. If we can group them together I could get behind a new logistics or commercial key.
2 Likes
yes, these articles are not satisfying either, mostly links to wikipedia. I am generally unsure about “company” as a key, because it overlaps with other established tagging methods (as a concept, not for logistics in particular), and because it seems to require office=company which does not seem reasonable
Cool. I am OSM-thrilled when a question about something pretty specific (we’re not done, but we are closer) turns into “and we can better flesh out the larger, ontological (name)space (in this case, logistics and commercial…) with better wiki documentation and by deepening an existing Proposal.”
If not storage_shop, perhaps dark_store. Still spitballing, but we do get closer. The original topic (online groceries, “dark stores”) is a real concept, it fits into “something larger” (logistics…) and might help us better describe both that tag / semantic in OSM, as well as broaden our development of what we mean by commercial, which we already do in one case by distinguishing landuse=commercial (in which dark_stores might live), landuse=industrial (in which dark_stores might live, or maybe not) and landuse=retail (in which dark_stores may not live).
Go, OSM!
More often than not they do, because dark store brands like to rent the building of a shop/amenity that went out of business and operate from there, because pre-existing POIs are often situated conveniently in or close to residential areas (where consumers live) which shortens delivery times.
2 Likes
Thanks for that, Casper: I suspect what is often true is exactly as you describe it, though in my (recent, limited) research into these “dark stores,” it would seem they sometimes operate in a “zoning grey area” where if they ARE (ware?) “housed” in a building which is in a landuse=retail zone, but they aren’t strictly a retail business (as they don’t allow typical “come on in and shop here” shopping behavior), they are breaking (local, zoning ordinance…) laws. On the other hand, because they are “open to the public” via a website that provides a “shopping cart” experience, even if “delivery only” or “pick up saves you a delivery charge,” they could be said to be “retail.”
But we quibble about these — and it’s good that we do, but we’re down at the level of smaller details.
After dozens of posts in this topic (I answer “guilty as charged” for my share), we do get closer. Great dialog, fellow OSM tagging volunteers!
1 Like
Should dark stores be tagged with name? For some of these I would say a brand tag suffices.
For dual-purpose stores (both on-site shopping and deliveries from online shopping), does delivery=* suffice or do we need a(nother) tag that connects this function to the key for warehouses that we are discussing?
I would agree that brand is a more-correct syntax than name for a dark_store. A name=* tag might be additionally added (to the node containing a brand=* tag) if the business (or building?) is “more widely known” as that specific name, instead of the brand associated with this “fulfillment center” (dark_store). We can get detail-oriented with tags like loc_name=* and such, but that’s not the point: brand is the better tag for a dark_store.
I also think the the delivery=only tag is required for a dark_store, unless it allows pick_up, or is otherwise better characterized as a shop=outpost, as I believe the two are mutually exclusive. So, at the very least, a delivery=* tag is required, and will usually (I might guess) nearly-always have the value of “only.” To be clear, there are “outposts” and there are “dark_stores,” and they are not the same things and should have clearly distinct tagging.
Perhaps not, if we can document this as the default (implied) value.
1 Like
While outposts are clearly different from dark stores, do we want to group these in the same category as warehouses & online grocers? I think they might fit better in a “logistics” category than in the existing “shops” category. I know that ideas for retagging tend to bring some hassle with them, but if that means we end up with a more logical grouping of tags I think it’s worth considering.
We do precisely that “logical grouping” now, though we haven’t been terribly specific about the exact tagging we might propose.
Casper, I invite you to posit (as you say) a logistics category (not shops) that accommodates our out-loud-sketches here.
Personally, I don’t think we need to “muddy” logistics=* with dark_store (nor shop=outpost), though a mention/link to them in the logistics wiki (as we do now with other related topics) could suffice.
And if it isn’t clear, I’m discarding storage_shop=grocery in favor of dark_store=grocery.
You asked! 
Warehouses in any form of military storage area - they’re not industrial, as nothing is being made there, or commercial, as nothing is being bought or sold, but they’re a warehouse for receiving, storing & dispatching goods, equipment & so on.