[Tagging] RFC: toilets=yes, toilets:disposal, toilets:position and incoporating toilets:wheelchair

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed Jul 3 13:35:31 UTC 2013

On 03.07.2013 03:10, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> Discussion seems to have died down.  Any last comments on
> toilets:disposal and toilets:position before I open it up for vote?

"byop" is not self explanatory. Wouldn't "paper_available" or something
be more easily understood?

You also list male/female/unisex as keys for use on entrances, but right
now they are documented for use on the amenity=toilets itself. Would
that still remain a valid use (say for male/female/unisex only toilets,
or those mapped as a single node rather than as an outline with
entrances) or do you intend to replace that tagging entirely?

And finally, what is your suggestion if some attributes only apply to
the male or female part of a toilet? I don't think that necessarily
needs to be part of the proposal, mind you - it's already more detailed
than most toilets will likely end up being tagged - but I still wonder.


More information about the Tagging mailing list