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

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Wed Jul 24 22:24:51 UTC 2013

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) <
a.t.chadwick+lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

On the contrary, I interpret *access=private* as "*don't ask*".  Do you
want people knocking at your door asking to use your private toilet?
The customer case one can purchase access: anyone with money (meeting other
requirements like shoes or a shirt) can gain access.
The permissive case is the lazy one.  It might be private or customer, but
nobody's enforcing it and casual use is tolerated.
In the private case it is understood an invited guest has access to the
facilities: but not everyone will be invited.

The only thing new to toilets is the type of shop or establishment which
semi-controls access to the loo by keeping the key out of reach.
They'll then follow a policy as to who gets it: customers, anyone, or
perhaps anyone they don't dislike.

So perhaps the bit about "asking" has nothing to do with "*who can ask*".


But really my goal is to establish *pitlatrine*.  Access for toilets is
already widely mapped for better or worse.  That's really what I've put up
for vote.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130724/a40c62d7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list