[Tagging] Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Rory McCann rory at technomancy.org
Wed Oct 24 18:05:20 UTC 2018

On 23/10/2018 23:53, Andy Mabbett wrote
 >> "shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop
> Wouldn't that be "shop=books books=lgbtq"?

Good point.

On 24/10/2018 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> there may be lgbtq things, but there are also places which are
> explicitly gay bars, i.e. for homosexual men. If you tag these as
> lesbian queer trans ... it may not be right
> Wouldn’t it be more consistent with what we already have, to add
> lesbian, queer, trans and bi tags?

What kind of places are for gay (men) and not bi (men)? There's
an overlap (let's skip over the too prevalent biphobia in the LG
community). Lumping bi people of all gender into one category but
splitting gay (men) & lesbians seems odd. Often what as called "gay
bars" are open to all of the LGBTQ community. My proposal would allow
lgbtq:male=yes to cover cases you describe, right?

The existing tagging scheme prioritizes gay (men), which is subpar.

On 24/10/2018 10:27, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Based on what you wrote i have a bit of a problem seeing a
> verifiable meaning of the tag you are contemplating here.  If there
> is some sort of certification system for bars based on objective
> criteria similar to hotel stars ratings that would be something that
> can be tagged but a subjective assessment based on perceived
> tolerance and friendliness or by statistics of the clientele seems
> problematic.
Yes, "LGBTQ friendly" is subjective, but I don't mean that. "LGBTQ
bars" *do* exist. If you want a simple rule: Does the business refer
to itself as that? i.e. only map "out" gay bars, for security &
verifiability reasons.

On 24/10/2018 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> usually "blah=yes" means that blah is available or blah is permitted,
> not that the place is mostly/exclusively for blah. Conversely, in
> your definition an "lgbtq=no" would then mean that the place is *not*
> specifically an lgbtq place; many users could, however, misread
> lgbtq=no (which would be a valid tag for the majority of places since
> they don't specifically cater to lgbtq people) as "this place does
> not admit lgbtq people" (which is probably/hopefully true only for a
> very small number of places).
Good point.

One could say "OSM Tags are for machines, so consult the
docs", but I think tags should be readable to humans (one you learn to
speak OSM-tag-ese).

> You don't want "lgbtq=only" since usually an lgbtq bar *will* admit
 > straight people

Yes they will (plus some members of the LGBTQ community are straight, or
in relationship with straight people 😉). Wiki says diet:vegan=only
means "All *or almost all* products are vegan", so lgbtq=only is
consistent with that, but it seems too confusing, and doesn't read well,
so I think it's not the best.

> Perhaps "lgbtq=designated"

That's close, *but* sounds like an official body has designed the place
as a LGBTQ venue, rather than someone choosing to run a business that
way. It could be the best contender.


More information about the Tagging mailing list