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

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:56 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is not my area of expertise. But I’ve noticed that a number of bars
> that are designed for gay men in the USA have a sign on the door with a
> crossed out “W”. It looks like a no smoking sign but with a capital W
> instead of a cigarette.
>

I've literally never heard of this.  Usually GLBT friendly establishments
in the US and Canada have a rainbow flag out front or are overtly campy, or
in San Francisco's Castro District, *extremely both*.  And in both
countries, you don't have to be a specific gender or orientation to go in
there.  Heck, they'll even generally serve homophobes so long as they're
not disruptive or otherwise harshing the atmosphere:  Money talks, BS walks.


> This means “no women allowed.” My wife tells me this is still legal in the
> USA?!


It's not, 14th Amendment (1868), equal protection clause.  A century later,
we spent a decade re-litigating this in the streets because apparently it
wasn't made clear the first time around.


> There are also barber shops that exclude women (though these shops usually
> serve straight, gay and bi Men without distinctions)
>

There are gender-specific barber/hairdresser shops, but that isn't a
restriction on who they will serve but a description of the specialty of
what hairstyles they can turn out.  A men's barber shop will serve women,
but if they don't want a haircut that's popular among men, the result is
probably going to be on par with something they could get cheaper going to
a beauty school's open house (since that could be very well be the most
recently they've done such a cut, however long ago that was for the barber)
or not really possible at all (at least in the US, a men's barber shop,
especially older ones, might be so basic, particularly in small towns, as
to lack shampoo sinks and hair dryers).

Likewise, womens barbers don't turn away guys, but getting a guy's cut
there is not going to be ideal (my mom would take me to her hairdresser as
a kid sometimes when the whole family needed haircuts, and they'd totally
crush it out of the park with my mom and sister's hair, but totally butcher
mine; but I have full confidence that if I wanted the same cut as my sister
or mom, they'd have got it right).


> So I believe this would be verifiable information. It would also be safe
> to tag women=no for bars or clubs even in countries where LGBT activity is
> illegal or persecuted. Men=designated could be used for bars that are
> mainly for gay, bi (and trans?) men, but which do not prohibit women
> explicitly.
>
> I haven’t heard of bars with a “no men” sign, but “women=designated” could
> work for bars catering to lesbian, bisexual )and trans?) women?


 Pretty sure access tagging is a legal restriction/designation, not a
specialty one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181024/6178a29d/attachment.html>