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

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Thu Jul 25 19:24:11 UTC 2013


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew Chadwick (lists) <
a.t.chadwick+lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> > We won't tag access=private at all, because we only want public toilets
> > to be in the database.
>
> We tag private parking, so why not private outhouses if they're a useful
> landmark to the public?


Indeed, we tag private things *all the time*: private buildings, railway
structures, transmission towers, etc.
If it's visible it should be mappable, right?

However "amenity=toilet" often goes beyond what's visible.  The building
might be visible, but the ammenty is restricted.

Thus a toilet in a private office building?  I would not mark it as
an amenity.
A toilet in an outbuilding of a private home?  I might tag the visible
outline of the structure, but would not tag amenity=toilet.


   - What does it look like?  ( a building )
   - What's inside the building? ( a shop )
   - What's inside the shop?  ( a toilet  )
   - Who has access to it? ( people who ask for a key )
   - What services does it provide?  ( flushing, toilet paper, urinal )




   - What does it look like? ( a hole the the ground )
   - Who has access to it? ( anyone who happens past )
   - What services does it provide?  ( a pit )


   - What does it look like? ( a building )
   - Who has access to it? ( private )
   - What services does it provide?  ( not relevant )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130725/d90560d4/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list