[Imports] `lgbtq=primary` ? | Re: Import of information and care points in Catalunya, Spain

[Rory McCann]

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