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

Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0909 at googlemail.com
Wed Jul 24 13:14:57 UTC 2013

2013/7/24 Andrew Chadwick (lists) <a.t.chadwick+lists at 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130724/480a07e4/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list