Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

пн, 10 окт. 2022 г., 22:31 Marc_marc : > when a =yes tag has different characteristics, > it is easy to add values for the different characteristics > unisexx=segregated unisexx=not-segregated > and given the existence of 2 meanings according to the contributors, > the yes value will have to be do

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 19:42 Uhr schrieb Amanda McCann : > > I'm a native English speaker, and I agree! I also wrote that part of the wiki > (years ago). I think some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning > “gender segregated but male & female are available”, i.e. read that paragr

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Le 10.10.22 à 19:37, Amanda McCann a écrit : some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning “gender segregated but male & female are available” as a non-English speaker, I understand unisex as "possible for both", without any information on whether it will be segregated or not. when

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Term "unisex" is obvious for me (I am not a native English speaker), but in JOSM validator historically has been rule "replace female=yes & male=yes to unisex=yes". пн, 10 окт. 2022 г., 21:56 martianfreeloader : > Hi Amanda, > > No. > > What puzzles non-native speakers (including myself) is that

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Hi Amanda, No. What puzzles non-native speakers (including myself) is that English has a clear distinction between sex and gender (other than, for example, German). Yet, the term "unisex" (contains the word "sex") is used to designate a situation in the "gender" category, not sex. Can you h

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 20:05 +02:00, Zeke Farwell wrote: > The proposal currently states: >> Meaning of the unisex =yes >> is currently unclear: >> >> * gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or >> * facility that accessible for

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Le 06.10.22 à 10:12, martianfreeloader a écrit : gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation gender=not-segregated ? but unisex==egregate <> unisex=not-segregate has the same meaning, minus the key change behind this cl

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:12 PM Zeke Farwell wrote: > The proposal currently states: > >> Meaning of the unisex >> =yes is currently unclear: >> >>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or >>- facility that accessible f

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Zeke Farwell writes: > The proposal currently states: > >> Meaning of the unisex =yes >> is currently unclear: >> >>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or >>- facility that accessible for men and women, either segre

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

The proposal currently states: > Meaning of the unisex =yes > is currently unclear: > >- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or >- facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not. > > I do not under

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

That's already in use in the same proposal. gender=any - all genders allowed, unknown if there is segregation gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation I was wondering if we can replace gender=unisex by something which

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

gender=any? Thanks Graeme On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 21:21, martianfreeloader wrote: > In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it strange > to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex > and gender are different properties). > > Proposal: https://wiki

[Tagging] Better term for unisex

In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it strange to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex and gender are different properties). Proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender My suggestion was to use gender=mixed inst