On 10.03.19 19:00, Lanxana . wrote:
about the LGTBI centers, I was evaluating to use community_center, but
as their function is to inform and to advise, I decided that
social_facility was more adjusted to their use.
Yes, good idea. I wasn't suggesting using the `community_centre:for`
key, I was suggesting the `lgbtq` value. "This value is used for this
key, maybe use that value". `social_facility:for` is probably the right
tag here.
I think it's good idea to make the change to
'social_facility:for=lgbtq', even if some groups are left out. When I
consulted in TagInfo I forgot to do the search with the english
acronym.
That's OK, LGBTQ+ tagging is relatively poor in OSM right now. I only
started discussion on the `lgbtq` key recently (
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040144.html
). `lgbtq=primary` is better that the previous common tag of `gay=yes`.
A point was raised on the diversity-talk[1] mailing list:
the more important question is, given the potentially sensitive
nature of the information, have the entities in question been asked if
they are OK with the integration in OSM (which from a visibility POV is
very different from being registered in an obscure government database)?
I don't know exactly what these venues are, and how "open" they are, is
this something to be concerned about?
--
Rory
[1] Yes there's a list for that!
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
_______________________________________________
Imports mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
