Hi there,
I created the Proposal:shop=telecommunication in order to approve usage of shop=telecommunication for shops of telecommunication companies, provide a clear difference between this tag and shop=mobile_phone and definitely put an end to their inconsistent tagging on the NSI.
If you have any comments/suggestions, please discuss them here or on the talk page.
I think that page is flawed by trying to (to quote the page) “Defining a clear difference between both tags”.
There really isn’t a clear difference and the idea that only the largest mobile network operators are telcos hasn’t been true since basically forever.
Any wiki proposal that seeks to redefine the meaning of an in-use tag (as this one does) is in for a world of pain.
Taking a step back, what is driving this initiative? What is wrong or missing in OSM data that has led you to want to draw this line?
Where’s the problem with that? Both tags are overlapping, causing inconsistency in data and I’m simply trying to fix that.
Just like you’ve read in different discussions, especially the UK one, some countries tag shops of telecom companies as shop=mobile_phone and others as shop=telecommunication, simply because of which tag came first on the NSI. Don’t you see a (pretty big) problem with that?
Please elaborate.
The problem is that there isn’t really a clear difference between the concepts here. Think of the Venn diagram containing “things you might do in a mobile phone shop” and “things you might do in a telecommunications shop”. Realistically there are lots of different things that you can do, and there is a significant overlap between them (and other things). For example, if someone is moving from one mobile network to another, they may also look at whether they can get a deal on broadband at home, and a TV package to go with that. They may also get offers to trade up to a new mobile phone, and/or want to buy accessories at the same time.
If you’re artificially trying to draw a line (without ever having looked at a particular shop that an OSMer is trying to tag) you may miss significant cues in a particular market. A big clue should have been asking the same question in lots of OSM communities and getting different answers in each.
simply because of which tag came first on the NSI.
There’s absolutely an argument for not setting a shop** value for these in the NSI, but I have no idea if it can do that.
** beyond saying "probably either mobile_phone or telecommunications.
Please elaborate
I’m sure you really don’t want “war stories” such as about when the UK company I worked for at the time decided to become a telco in Albania**, but in deregulated markets (such as the UK, and lots of others) pretty much anyone can “be some sort of telco” and lots of them will have shops. There are both fixed line and mobile resellers, and those mobile resellers may use an MVNO or one of the main networks, and they might use an APN for data or they may not.
Right now, OSM mappers ask themselves “does this shop look like one that mostly sells mobile phones” or “does this shop look like one that mostly sells telecommunication services”. These are fairly woolly concepts. Trying to nail things down in a wiki definition is likely to make things harder for mappers, not easier.
** yes, that actually happened
It could be useful to say something about how this tag relates to office=telecommunication, which is used about 3 times as often. Many of the examples in the proposal of things you can do in this type of shop sound more like “office’ things than “shop” things - signing contracts and so on. Does having a small display of mobile phones turn an office into a shop?
I am also unsure where a shop like PhoneHouse fits. In Spain at least, you can do pretty much everything you list at one of their shops - plus sign up to electricity and gas contracts! But I don’t think PhoneHouse would be considered a telco, and they offer contracts with a range of actual telcos.
Please don’t add office=telecommunication to the discussion. The wiki page defines it as a corporate office of a telecom company, just like other office tags.
What we’re talking about are still stores, even though you sign contracts there.
The question is simply defining a clear tagging scheme for these stores because they’re inconsistently tagges as either shop=mobile_phone or shop=telecommunication.
Isn’t that exactly the problem? Each community giving different answers? (Most of them agreed)
Are you suggesting it’s better not to do anything and stay with a terrible inconsistency in data? Instead of actually making a proposal and see what people think?
Isn’t that quite obvious? In a shop=mobile_phone I mainly go to buy a phone. Like a Samsung shop or a Huawei store, Apple store… Though that might overlap with shop=electronics, since most of them are nowadays also selling tablets, watches, notebooks, headphones,…
The focus is: I go there and get out with a hardware only.
In a shop=telecommunications I mainly go to buy communication services. Though I might end up getting a phone or a router as part of a package deal.
At least for the brand shops that should be quite clear. Though I agree with you that there is also a grey area of independent shops, where you can’t easily distinguish.
It might be not the big thing in the first world, though in developing countries, it’s quite common to buy the phone separate and then get a prepaid card from the telco.
Any “inconsistency” in OSM data is merely reflecting the real world. You seem to think that there is a clear line that can be drawn that will “separate the sheep from the goats”. I don’t think that there is, and its all just shades of grey. These shop tags aren’t unique in that respect (think of all of the discussions about road classification).
As I said above (and have banged on about ad nauseam elsewhere) data consumers can look at more than just the main tag here, and they can and will group “OSM tags” by category in ways that suit their individual requirements.
Given that the objective of your proposal is to bring more certainty I am a little surprised by your reaction. More than a quarter of office=telecommunication, over 9000 objects, are also tagged as shop=mobile_phone. So it seems relevant to a proposal about ttelecommunications and mobile phones to consider what mappers intended by that dual tagging and whether it should be affected by this proposal.
Ok, so we are in agreement then that the shops in the UK are shop=mobile_phone 
I think the issue with the proposal is that it assumes that shops have single purposes which isn’t the case in lots of places. If we go down the proposal route then we will end up with all shops using a very broadly defined tag value.
In my opinion it is best to go with a tag value that represents the main reason people go to a shop regardless of what else is sold there. For example I can pick up a mobile phone plan from the checkout aisle of a supermarket - nobody is suggesting we change the supermarket tag value.
I would encourage you to walk in to these shops and see what the store assistant thinks you are interested in first.
If by “the shops in the UK” you mean the O2/Vodafone etc stores, then no. I have never bought a phone outright from a network operator store. I have, however, signed up to an operator’s contract which included a phone as part of that contract.
We agree on this, but disagree on the result.
Mobile operator stores (e.g. O2, Vodafone, Three) are there to sell you a contract for, or at least a way to use (e.g., SIM only), their services which may (or may not!) include a device. So shop=telecommunication
A second hand phone store, for example, is there to sell you a phone. So shop=mobile_phone. (Apple & Samsung are probably electronics rather than phones)
An interesting case is Carphone Warehouse (or perhaps was, now that’s it’s been bought by Currys). They will sell you a device on its own but also heavily push network operator plans.
I also think this is the case. I am with @SomeoneElse here, it would be best to leave shop empty in the NSI for these.
I don’t know where you guys in UK will go to get just a smartphone without signing a telecommunication contact. If you guys do this at Vodafone, then you are correct. Like you would go to Vodafone to buy the cheaper hardware and then go next door to Orange for the cheaper telecommunication deal?
In the US and Germany I would go to the T-Mobile shop only for a package deal. Same situation in China. Usually T-Mobile would vendor lock the phones they sell (at a discounted price).
I actually like this proposal. In Australia at least, it seems clear that shops like Telstra or Optus are Telecommunications shops, despite most of the store being dedicated to having mobiles phones on display for purchase. These are both currently listed in the NSI as mobile phone shops though.
I think the defining factor in my mind is that a telecommunications store is dedicated to selling products/services of a single (telecommunications) brand. Phones you buy there are generally network-locked to that brand.
On the other hand, mobile phone shops would sell either non-telecommunications-branded products (i.e. unlocked phones) or phones that can be locked/branded to different companies.
Although most of these will also sell you Pay As You Go SIM card, not a contract but most people don’t have contracts.
I think that illustrates the difficulty of a common approach internationally. I don’t think phones have generally been network locked in Spain for 10 years or so, so that wouldn’t work as a deciding factor here. Operators like Movistar sell phones associated with a contract in their stores, of course, but also as straightforward purchases with up front payment for which you don’t have to be a customer.
That’s fair. I’ll add it to the proposal.
It seems you’re from the UK. I checked the “electronics” section of the websites of the main operators there (EE, Vodafone, Three, O2).
They all sell phones, tablets, laptops, smartwatches, smart glasses, speakers, and other types of electronics. I’m sure that’s also the case in the physical stores.
Do you still think shop=mobile_phone is more precise than shop=telecommunication here? Even shop=electronics would be more precise than shop=mobile_phone.
shop=mobile_phone doesn’t include telecommunication stuff. shop=telecommunication includes selling phones, tablets, laptops etc.
If I had never walked inside these shops I wouldn’t even make this proposal in the first place. I went to many of these stores in Morocco, Spain and France and I can’t imagine using shop=mobile_phone for them. Maybe in the UK stores are more phone (and other electronics)-centric, but that’s not the case in these 3 countries (and many other countries, actually, like community discussions have showed).
Nevertheless, you’ll have to broaden your mind and go past that “I mainly go there to buy a phone” idea, because I’m trying to find a solution for this inconsistent tagging, and shop=mobile_phone is a shop that sells mobile phones, not telecommunication stuff. shop=telecommunication is a shop that sells telecommunication stuff AND can sell mobile phones and other electronics.
The current documentation says only that “some” of these shops also sell mobile phones. I’m not sure if the proposal intentionally changes this to imply that they always sell mobile phones?
I am still unsure about shops like PhoneHouse that sell mobile phones and contracts with a range of telcos - the current proposal seems to disqualify them from both types of shop.
Obviously not always. I rephrased my sentence. I simply meant that shop=telecommunication can englobe selling electronics, in a way that shop=mobile_phone, simply from how this tag is called, can’t.
I simply didn’t mention them (yet).
Seeing https://www.phonehouse.es/, they not only sell mobile phones, but also cameras, tablets, laptops, smartwatches, monitors, earphones, TVs, consoles, speakers… And at the very bottom of the page, there’s a very small section that shows “Our operators - we have the best offers for you”.
I think these fall into the shop=electronics category. I’ll also mention them in the proposal.