[Tagging] Mapping private home toilets

Janko Mihelić janjko at gmail.com
Tue Mar 3 14:17:15 UTC 2015

If those toilets are private, why do they state if women can use them?
Isn't that a private matter up to the owner of the toilette?

2015-03-03 15:04 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring <malcolm.herring at btinternet.com>:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150303/4afd2909/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list