Talk:Key:motorcycle:sales

Redundancy

This tag is massively redundant as it is mainly being tagged wrongly on objects that already have a tag indicating that the place sells motorcycles. 1465 of the 1,529 uses are places that are already tagged with shop=motorcycle. Which is already the de-facto, widely accepted tag for shops that sell motorcycles. The 64 uses that are left over doesn't justify an individual, unique top level tag. Especially since in this case it goes against the rule of not using new tags where there is already an existing one. Its not a refinement or an improvement to add a tag to objects already tagged shop=motorcycle that imparts the same exact information in a slightly different way. My suggestion is that the tag be depreciated and the existing uses of it on objects already tagged as shop=motorcycle be deleted. As their use clearly goes against tagging conventions, they don't serve a purpose, and where mainly added by a single user through un-discussed mass edits and edit warring anyway. Which really shouldn't be supported. Although, even without that there is still enough of a case to depreciate and get rid of it in favor of using the already established, widely used shop=motorcycle tag. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you ever think about what a namespace is good for ? In short : It's for the refinement of "established" tags, nice to see in this collection (not necessarily complete) : Namespace_tag_overview. It's also called "syntax" or "terminology" in languages "grammar", all of them may be found with a search engine of your choice. I also recommend to read this article : |"Why OpenStreetMap is in Serious Trouble", but probably it collides with your set of beliefs. Try anyway to understand it. A quick hint : In real life, motorcycle (and other) shops aren't only about selling things. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I have and clearly more thought then you have. As I've said many times already, I'm not against "namespaces." I'm your usage of them and really only in some circumstances where the guidelines say they aren't best to use, there is already existing established tags, or where the tags where artificially boosted through un-disclosed mass edits. Other then those instances I could really care less namespaces. There's more then a few namespace tagging scheme's I have zero problems including some you've created. Your just cherry picking the namespaces I have a problem with. Which is very intellectually dishonest.

What's also intellectually dishonest is cherry picking a single bias opinion piece to make an argument. I wouldn't do that, if it supported my beliefs or not. At least not without providing other supporting evidence and saying how its relevant to the topic. Which you never seem to do. You just repeatedly cherry pick the same four or five things like they automatically make you right (when they don't), without saying how exactly they apply to the situation. That said, I have read the article a few times and no where does it say creating a bunch of redundant, un-needed tags by turning everything into a namespace is the way to fix OSMs problems. Let alone does it mention this tag or shop=motorcycle specifically. So its completely irrelevant in this situation and I'd argue more generally.

As is your whole "my tag is great because 'namespace tagging refinement'" or "I'm right by default because KISS principle." Your just stating none-sense words that are taken out of context (which no one agrees applies in the situations your using them), just so your right by default "because words." As you clearly don't have an argument here, I stick by my assertion that this tag is redundant (in real world use. Not in your imagery scenario where its only being applied to everything except motorcycle shops), should be abandoned, and the uses where its redundant should be deleted. Unless you have a good reason why not that isn't cherry picking or taking a bunch of stuff out of context. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems you're not really often coming out of the cellar. And if you'd use less hot air and more facts, I'd probably read something of your lengthy blahblah. But I created two exaples for people who never heard about shops which sell different things than the "main" product : brand=Polo Motorrad, brand=Louis Motorrad. Next is probably you'd tag it with two nodes, one shop=clothes and shop=motorcycle_parts instead ?
user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Italian guy who was translating the page apparently thought about people who don't get the namespace principle and created some nice examples : IT:Key:motorcycle:sales
user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh look, more deflection, personal attacks, and sarcasm, but no answers. Who would have thought. Do you have an actual constructive comment on what I originally wrote about the redundancy in uses and the fact that the tag isn't actually being used for anything unique, or are you just going to be nonconstructive by attacking me everywhere? You know your not obligated to comment. I didn't ping or mention you in the original post. So you could have just stayed out of it. I would have really preferred if you did. Especially since your the one that keeps saying they aren't "your tags." If they aren't then prove it by just leaving things alone. Don't comment everywhere about the tags, don't insult people who ask questions about them (especially if its not specifically at you), and don't edit war people who modify the articles. Or just answer my original question about the redundancy, but if you don't have anything constructive to add, don't comment next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)