[Tagging] Improve toilet tagging
mcochran at athensal.us
Tue Mar 14 17:31:42 UTC 2017
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11-Mar-17 08:51 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> On 03/10/2017 09:43 PM, Micah Cochran wrote:
>>> #2. Single-stall versus Multi-stall tagging
>> There's also those male toilets with a discrete number of urinals and
>> those where you have basically one wall-wide urinal used by as many
>> people as manage to cram in ;)
> There are also discrete urinals with modesty walls to either side.
> There are also toilets with urinal/s only (these were termed pissoir).
My elementary school had one of those wall-wide urinals. :-)
I can see that in the developing world that the standards might be a little
different. I did consider using the "capacity" tag to try to get a rough
estimate of the number of people who can use the facilities at one time.
If there is more than one "gender" or its tagged within an establishment,
you'd break it out like this:
The downfall of this tagging is that if you have a large venue like a
stadium that the capacity might be capacity for hundreds or thousands of
people to use the restroom at a time. A place large enough to be a stadium
should have indoor mapping, but one near me (which has 100,000 seats) does
not have that level of mapping (with multiple restroom areas). Most
likely, all of them are multi-stall, but there might be a few single stall
toilets. Also, when there are more than about 10 toilets, many mappers (me
included) will ignore counting capacity.
I'm not sold on using capacity, but it could be reasonable compromise to
tagging the number of stalls.
>> #3. A way to tag the toilets male/female/unisex within an establishment.
>> Until SotM Brussels I always assumed that an un-gendered amenity=toilets
>> would automatically mean there'll be separate facilites for men an
>> women, and only when accompanied with gender tags would it be limited to
>> a specific sex. In Brussels there was a talk by a woman from India who -
>> if I remember correctly - said that she'd usually not consider to even
>> visit a toilet that was not explicitly marked as having capacity for
>> women because the "default" over there seems to be it's for men. Which
>> brings a whole new urgency to gender tagging.
> Unisex toilets exist in Japan, open to both sexes.
> Some have male urinals alongside the wash basins, there, if you want
> privacy, you would have to use a stall (enclosed single toilet).
There are a few unisex toilets with multiple stalls in the US. It is
currently a trend on college campuses. I've not been in one, but what I've
seen appears more private than the gendered counterparts with floor to
ceiling locking rooms for each toilet.
> For example CCC in Hamburg had gender neutral toilets. They upgraded the
> existing (gendered) toilets for the event. So the signs said "Unisex with
> urinal" and "Unisex without urinal". Some people don't want the chance to
> see penises, and hence would avoid unisex toilets for this reason. "Unisex
> toilets without urinal" solves that problem.
I would not be surprised if DEF CON did something similar.
I have heard about signing toilets as "unisex with/without urinal". In the
US, some places are making all of their toilets unisex as a protesting
"bathroom bills". Instead of remodeling facilities, establishments simply
change the signs. As stated, restroom users figure out which restroom they
would feel most comfortable using.
With what I've proposed, this would be tagged individually as:
toilets:position=seated OR toilets:position=seated;urinals
or within an establishment as (with the toilets:unisex that I proposed):
Convention Centres are probably big enough to need indoor mapping, but that
all depends upon level detail.
>> #1. toilets: namespace
>>> There could be a default toilets: namespace for when tagged within a
>>> place/establishment. This would allow for tagging a richer level of
>>> toilet information.
>> I'm wary of tagging too many business details. I fear a toilets
>> namespace would lead to people adding all sorts of observations about
>> toilets that they used in some shop or other and that might at best be
>> access=customers if not access=private. I think this would be going too
>> far, it's almost as if we were to start taggin how wide the isles in a
>> shop were or how many checkout desks or if they stock canned
>> strawberries. I suggest to encourage the recording of details only for
>> toilets that are explicitly public, and not those in restaurants or
>> department stores.
> Some establishments have no toilet for customers use, that, I view, as
> very poor for any eating establishment.
> I would prefer to know that so that I can select another establishment
> that has toilet facilities.
In the US suburbs, it is a mostly a given that if you have a business open
to customers that you have a restroom available for the customers and if
that business isn't really old it *should* accommodate wheelchairs. The
suburbs aren't very walkable.
A business within an dense urban environment might have a public restroom
within walking distance, so it might not be a problem.
There are walk up (drive up) fast foot restaurants that have no indoor
seating that I do not expect to have toilets. If I knew they did, I might
stop there on a long trip.
Supermarkets sometimes hide their toilets, so you have to ask and be lead
through the employee only area to get to it. I don't necessarily care
about tagging that.
This is a great idea. Did you know about http://www.refugerestrooms.org/ ?
> It's a collection of data about this. Perhaps it's possible to ask for an
No, I did not. It is the direction that I was heading in. I'll probably
post on their github page about OSM information they can use, but it looks
like they have a little more information than might be appropriate to store
in OSM. Thank you very much for that tip.
Thank you everyone for the great feedback.
GIS Coordinator - City of Athens - Engineering Services & Community
Development Dept. - Dept. of Public Works Building - 1600 ELM ST W,
Athens, AL <http://g.co/maps/ncrp7> - geo:34.820608,-86.991474 - p.
256-233-2224 <(256)%20233-2224> - f. 256-233-8791 <(256)%20233-8791> -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging