[Tagging] Mapping private home toilets

Malcolm Herring malcolm.herring at btinternet.com
Tue Mar 3 14:04:53 UTC 2015


On 03/03/2015 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2015 12:07 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt"
> <bryce2 at obviously.com
> <mailto:bryce2 at obviously.com>> wrote:
>
>  > I'm opening a discussion about at least mechanically re-tagging
>   operator:type=private
>  > into "access=no" or "access=private", so that rendering software can
> choose to omit these locations depending on the map purpose.
>
> I'm supportive of this change.  Limited access toilets exist, I don't
> see why we can't broaden the current definition of the tag to
> disambiguate access.
>
In the case of private toilets, the issue is surely one of privacy. 
Within a private boundary, no "amenity" tags should appear at all. Where 
a toilet within that boundary is contained either within the main 
building or a separate building, then no toilet tags should appear at 
all. It is a private matter for the property owners as to the usage of 
their structures.





More information about the Tagging mailing list