[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/7/15 Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at 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.