Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
Voting for: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets Is at eleven yes, and one no. The no is conditional on switching to a scheme allowing counting (e.g. 4 seats, 3 urinals). However, I am not interested in mapping to that level of detail, and would like to leave that to a future effort. While capacity tagging does no particular harm, counting the facilities for both genders will prove problematic for many. Capacity tagging does not add personal value for me (either large or small facilities may have a long line at the time I visit, for example). Any advice how to proceed? The no votor is not currently responsive, perhaps vacationing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Open for voting is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets Which includes toilets:position and toilets:disposal, to allow tagging of squat facilities and pitlatrines. Are you voting by amending people's tagging without survey? I'm looking at for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17132417 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/17055256 (which of course may not be you at all; just someone with a similar name - my apologies if that's the case) It could of course be that you've undertaken a significant amount of worldwide travel to survey the data affected by those changesets, including: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1374687606/history in which case I'll also apologise - but if not any such worldwide edits are covered by http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edit_Policy and should really have been discussed beforehand, and people who are e.g. voting on wiki proposals (or even just deciding what tag to use) need to know that what they're seeing in taginfo is the result of editing without survey, but with an assumption of what the original editor might have meant when they used a particular tag. For example, Edmund Blackadder's latest in front wall fresh air orifices combined with a wide capacity gutter installation below was certainly flushing=no, but wouldn't (by the passers-by underneath at least) have been considered a pitlatrine. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote: We won't tag access=private at all, because we only want public toilets to be in the database. We tag private parking, so why not private outhouses if they're a useful landmark to the public? Indeed, we tag private things *all the time*: private buildings, railway structures, transmission towers, etc. If it's visible it should be mappable, right? However amenity=toilet often goes beyond what's visible. The building might be visible, but the ammenty is restricted. Thus a toilet in a private office building? I would not mark it as an amenity. A toilet in an outbuilding of a private home? I might tag the visible outline of the structure, but would not tag amenity=toilet. - What does it look like? ( a building ) - What's inside the building? ( a shop ) - What's inside the shop? ( a toilet ) - Who has access to it? ( people who ask for a key ) - What services does it provide? ( flushing, toilet paper, urinal ) - What does it look like? ( a hole the the ground ) - Who has access to it? ( anyone who happens past ) - What services does it provide? ( a pit ) - What does it look like? ( a building ) - Who has access to it? ( private ) - What services does it provide? ( not relevant ) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Something could be both inquiry and customer. Is there a better way? FWIW, it'd be enquiry not inquiry in English (rather than in American). Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
2013/7/24 Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com
As described in the proposal, inquiry is partly about practical
locking mechanisms so a better way which factors out those concerns is
access=private
locked={yes|mechanism}[1] (or some other tag)
While I can see your intention here, that is the most counter-intuitive way
to tag this I've ever seen.
You would tag a PUBLIC toilet with access=PRIVATE just because you have to
ask for a key first?
This is better because access=private already carries the you must
inquire meaning. As the Key:access page states, access=private means
only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. And how
does one acquire permission? One inquires.
There is a subtle difference between enquiring for permission to enter/use
and to inquire for the key/code/token.
We won't tag access=private at all, because we only want public toilets to
be in the database.
Access=permissive would be the most limited value I would tag at all.
A toilet at a gas station might be for anyone to use (access right)
(access=public? access=yes?), but you still
may have to inquire within for the key (access method).
For your example, one needn't inquire as to whether one may use the
toilets if one is a customer. Merely after a code, for example. So a
better way would be to use
access=customers
locked=code[1] (or some other tag)
So maybe we mean the same thing after all. The access restriction has
nothing to do with inquiring for a code.
I still think its more helpful to tell that you have to ask the staff
instead of just saying it is locked with a code.
I object to muddling the access=* key with yet more values having the
same meaning as existing ones, especially without discussion on the
access tagging page. access=* describes legal access, and should have
nothing to do with practical access (except for barriers, sigh). In
short: if you need to ask before each use, then it's an existing
restrictive access value, either customers, or more probably private.
I see your concerns about using the access key here. I'm fine with access=*
having a different meaning depending on the main tag. We have that for
other tags as well (type=* is probably the best example). But if others
also see this problem, we better might move it to toilet::access to avoid
confusion. Not all the access=* values make sense anyway. (access=hgv
anyone?)
Regards,
Chaos
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On 15/07/13 07:52, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Open for voting is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets
Which includes toilets:position and toilets:disposal, to allow tagging
of squat facilities
and pitlatrines.
Capacity tagging needs to be added. This might make toilets:position
redundant.
We should be able to express how many stalls and urinals there are, to
help solve the problem of finding a toilet which is likely to be vacant
right now.
Let's use a riff on the way the parking schemata do it, tailored for
toilets by 'position', or better by a sort of stall type/user or stall
plumbing type thing:
capacity={yes|count};; total capacity for all users
capacity:type={yes|no|count} ;; capacity for specific usage
where count is a cardinal number, {0, 1, 2, ...}, and type is a
stall type {disabled, seated, squat, urinal, ...}. Expressing it in an
open-ended way allows capacities for disabled users to be expressed
similarly to the parking schemata. It even helps hide a minor
ick-factor by making it not purely about how one excretes, and that
could help with uptake of the tag[1].
Speaking of cultural mores that make mapping trickier, we may wish to
add limited as a possible count, for when queues are known to form
at busy times for people of a different toilet-door-gender to one's own.
This would seem to fully replace the proposed toilets:position key, and
it's simpler and more versatile. What do you think?
[1] No, seriously. Simple resistance to talking about these things even
affects healthcare provision and research, just ask Mary Roach. Assume
a non-zero number of OSM volunteers will be shrinking violets...
--
Andrew Chadwick
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On 24/07/13 14:14, Ronnie Soak wrote:
While I can see your intention here, that is the most counter-intuitive
way to tag this I've ever seen.
You would tag a PUBLIC toilet with access=PRIVATE just because you have
to ask for a key first?
Let's agree that permissive is probably more useful. However it does
not carry any implicit you must inquire meaning, rather an unless the
owner says no.
Perhaps a third axis is needed for this particular nuance. For a value,
maybe indicate what to ask for:
access:request={permission|yes|key|code|...}
I'm not sure. It's more detail than my baked brain would be capable of
after a long summer day's mapping. Provided it doesn't mess with the
access tagging, it's probably OK. Hey,
access-key=request ; no, though they'll listen
request={key|code|permission} ; specifics of what to ask for
might be OK too, as a less restrictive private or no indicating what
to ask for.
Attempting to crowbar access=new-stuff in via a refinement of the
toilet tagging seems a bit of an abuse of the procedure some people seem
to love around here. It should be proposed directly, in its own right,
since it affects such an important key.
[Either that or faffing with voting doesn't matter in the first place
and you should just use what you see fit and document what works]
There is a subtle difference between enquiring for permission to
enter/use and to inquire for the key/code/token.
We won't tag access=private at all, because we only want public toilets
to be in the database.
We tag private parking, so why not private outhouses if they're a useful
landmark to the public?
So maybe we mean the same thing after all. The access restriction has
nothing to do with inquiring for a code.
I still think its more helpful to tell that you have to ask the staff
instead of just saying it is locked with a code.
Fair enough. I think it's best for this proposal to drop the additions
to the access scheme. Those could be done later, and in the right way.
I see your concerns about using the access key here. I'm fine with
access=* having a different meaning depending on the main tag. We have
that for other tags as well (type=* is probably the best example). But
if others also see this problem, we better might move it to
toilet::access to avoid confusion. Not all the access=* values make
sense anyway. (access=hgv anyone?)
There's no such tag, but I get your drift. horse=no would be fairly
silly too. I guess the correct access-key to use is foot then, not
access... (/old discussion)
type=* is horrendous garbage data that should be replaced on sight,
unless it's on a relation. service=* is pretty nasty as well, but an
acceptable refinement for service roads. We should do better than these
in new tagging for the sake of our data. Namespaces are one honking
great idea - let's do more of those.
According to the main tag - sure, but how does a machine know which
one is the main tag? I don't think it should be expected to. Tags
should mean the same thing in all contexts to be of maximal use, and we
ought to make efforts to avoid or correct erroneous situations where
they don't.
--
Andrew Chadwick (although practicality beats purity)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) a.t.chadwick+li...@gmail.com wrote: This is better because access=private already carries the you must inquire meaning. As the Key:access page states, access=private means only with permission of the owner on an individual basis. And how does one acquire permission? One inquires. On the contrary, I interpret *access=private* as *don't ask*. Do you want people knocking at your door asking to use your private toilet? - The customer case one can purchase access: anyone with money (meeting other requirements like shoes or a shirt) can gain access. The permissive case is the lazy one. It might be private or customer, but nobody's enforcing it and casual use is tolerated. In the private case it is understood an invited guest has access to the facilities: but not everyone will be invited. - The only thing new to toilets is the type of shop or establishment which semi-controls access to the loo by keeping the key out of reach. They'll then follow a policy as to who gets it: customers, anyone, or perhaps anyone they don't dislike. So perhaps the bit about asking has nothing to do with *who can ask*. But really my goal is to establish *pitlatrine*. Access for toilets is already widely mapped for better or worse. That's really what I've put up for vote. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.comwrote: On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access=permissive (while nominally private, no visible attempt is made to restrict access, and casual use appears to be tolerated by the owners). access=inquiry (an inquiry must be made for access, for example to receive a key). access=customers (the explicit policy is to require a purchase of some sort prior to use of the facilities. Non-customers should expect a risk they would be blocked from the facility.). Thank you Bryce, +1, this looks like a quite exhaustive list, I'd suggest you add this to the proposal, as it seems to be very useful Something could be both inquiry and customer. Is there a better way? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/15 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com Open for voting is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets what does fully private and public mean? Can I map a toilet on a camp site or on the beach or at a petrol station with this tag, where the usage is only allowed for customers of the camp site/beach/gas station? Does it change if the use by everyone coming by is tolerated but the toilets are privately owned and operated? Or if the use of nearly everyone is tolerated (i.e. usage at discretion of the owner who normally allows it)? If not, how (if at all) shall these be tagged then? Martin, The proposal on the table does not alter the access components of toilet mapping. However, access for toilets does seem to break down somewhat into categories, which mostly mirror the existing access tag for roads. I'd tag them as: access=public (explicitly public and open to whoever walks up. A fee may apply.) access=permissive (while nominally private, no visible attempt is made to restrict access, and casual use appears to be tolerated by the owners). access=inquiry (an inquiry must be made for access, for example to receive a key). access=customers (the explicit policy is to require a purchase of some sort prior to use of the facilities. Non-customers should expect a risk they would be blocked from the facility.). access=no/private (though I'd rather map this as toilets=no on a facility). There are plenty of shades within these. And unfortunately in some cases who you are, your skin color, attitude, or predilection for hooded sweatshirts can change the answer at an 'access=inquiry' establishment. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
Am 18/lug/2013 um 08:06 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: access=public (explicitly public and open to whoever walks up. A fee may apply.) access=permissive (while nominally private, no visible attempt is made to restrict access, and casual use appears to be tolerated by the owners). access=inquiry (an inquiry must be made for access, for example to receive a key). access=customers (the explicit policy is to require a purchase of some sort prior to use of the facilities. Non-customers should expect a risk they would be blocked from the facility.). access=no/private (though I'd rather map this as toilets=no on a facility). Thank you Bryce, +1, this looks like a quite exhaustive list, I'd suggest you add this to the proposal, as it seems to be very useful cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: access=permissive (while nominally private, no visible attempt is made to restrict access, and casual use appears to be tolerated by the owners). access=inquiry (an inquiry must be made for access, for example to receive a key). access=customers (the explicit policy is to require a purchase of some sort prior to use of the facilities. Non-customers should expect a risk they would be blocked from the facility.). Thank you Bryce, +1, this looks like a quite exhaustive list, I'd suggest you add this to the proposal, as it seems to be very useful Is there too much overlap between customers and inquiry? What do people think? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
2013/7/15 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com Open for voting is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets Which includes toilets:position and toilets:disposal, to allow tagging of squat facilities and pitlatrines. what does fully private and public mean? Can I map a toilet on a camp site or on the beach or at a petrol station with this tag, where the usage is only allowed for customers of the camp site/beach/gas station? Does it change if the use by everyone coming by is tolerated but the toilets are privately owned and operated? Or if the use of nearly everyone is tolerated (i.e. usage at discretion of the owner who normally allows it)? If not, how (if at all) shall these be tagged then? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what does fully private and public mean? Can I map a toilet on a camp site or on the beach or at a petrol station with this tag, where the usage is only allowed for customers of the camp site/beach/gas station? Does it change if the use by everyone coming by is tolerated but the toilets are privately owned and operated? Or if the use of nearly everyone is tolerated (i.e. usage at discretion of the owner who normally allows it)? If not, how (if at all) shall these be tagged then? A toilet in a private home or private office building seems to have crossed the line into over-mapping, that's what I meant to discourage. But I'd invite your edits to the wiki to clarify mapping of objects with fuzzy access restrictions, be they toilets or other facilities. While standalone toilets are usually open to all, there are literally millions of toilets inside places with access restrictions that may be strict, loose, or depend who is on shift that day. This type of toilet tagging has a lot in common with other restricted objects, One difference came up in the discussion: an assertion on the part of a wheelchair user who wants *all* toilets mapped because (paraphrasing) in my experience nobody ever refuses access to a wheelchair user. I cringe at the fuzzy and unverifiable nature of trying to capture that class of facility. *access=permissive* is the tag I use for a campground toilet where no particular access controls seem to exist. There are hundreds or thousands of those in OSM already. I've used OSM to find and use such a toilet as well: so at least one person has found mapping them of value. * toilets=no* is potentially useful, for those facilities you might expect have a toilet, but don't. For no public restroom facilities that's probably the right tagging, though difficult to keep up to date. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
