Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Illia Marchenko]

пн, 10 окт. 2022 г., 22:31 Marc_marc :

> when a =yes tag has different characteristics,
> it is easy to add values for the different characteristics
> unisexx=segregated unisexx=not-segregated
> and given the existence of 2 meanings according to the contributors,
> the yes value will have to be double-checked if we wish to specify
> the meaning the contributor had in mind
>
This is first reasons for proposal. Second reason is usage female=yes and
male=yes for both toilets and hairdresser, where meaning are different.
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender

>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Asa Hundert]

Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 19:42 Uhr schrieb Amanda McCann
:
>
> I'm a native English speaker, and I agree! I also wrote that part of the wiki 
> (years ago). I think some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning 
> “gender segregated but male & female are available”, i.e. read that paragraph 
> as “some OSMers might have been wrong, and we don't know how many 
> unisex=yes/no tags in OSM were affected by the misunderstanding”
>

Not a native speaker: unisex is a property of the infrastructure:
Toilets that accommodate any person regardless of sex are unisex,
garments that can be worn, regardless of sex are unisex.

If a facility is to be used by men and women at the same time, this is
not a property of the infrastructure, so unisex will not apply. The
sauna is unisex all the time, but the schedule is not, there are mixed
and un-mixed times instead. Such is the language here, translated into
English.

just my 2c; Hungerburg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Marc_marc]

Le 10.10.22 à 19:37, Amanda McCann a écrit :

some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning “gender segregated but 
male & female are available”


as a non-English speaker, I understand unisex as "possible for both",
without any information on whether it will be segregated or not.

when a =yes tag has different characteristics,
it is easy to add values for the different characteristics
unisexx=segregated unisexx=not-segregated
and given the existence of 2 meanings according to the contributors,
the yes value will have to be double-checked if we wish to specify
the meaning the contributor had in mind



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Illia Marchenko]

Term "unisex" is obvious for me (I am not a native English speaker), but in
JOSM validator historically has been rule "replace female=yes & male=yes to
unisex=yes".

пн, 10 окт. 2022 г., 21:56 martianfreeloader :

> Hi Amanda,
>
> No.
>
> What puzzles non-native speakers (including myself) is that English has
> a clear distinction between sex and gender (other than, for example,
> German). Yet, the term "unisex" (contains the word "sex") is used to
> designate a situation in the "gender" category, not sex.
>
> Can you help?
>
>
> On 10/10/2022 19:37, Amanda McCann wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 20:05 +02:00, Zeke Farwell 
> wrote:
> >> The proposal currently states:
> >>> Meaning of the unisex =yes
> is currently unclear:
> >>>
> >>>   * gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
> >>>   * facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or
> not.
> >> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well
> >> understood among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".
> >
> > I'm a native English speaker, and I agree! I also wrote that part of the
> wiki (years ago). I think some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as
> meaning “gender segregated but male & female are available”, i.e. read that
> paragraph as “some OSMers might have been wrong, and we don't know how many
> unisex=yes/no tags in OSM were affected by the misunderstanding”
> >
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[martianfreeloader]

Hi Amanda,

No.

What puzzles non-native speakers (including myself) is that English has 
a clear distinction between sex and gender (other than, for example, 
German). Yet, the term "unisex" (contains the word "sex") is used to 
designate a situation in the "gender" category, not sex.


Can you help?


On 10/10/2022 19:37, Amanda McCann wrote:

On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 20:05 +02:00, Zeke Farwell  wrote:

The proposal currently states:

Meaning of the unisex =yes is 
currently unclear:

  * gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
  * facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not.

I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well
understood among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".


I'm a native English speaker, and I agree! I also wrote that part of the wiki 
(years ago). I think some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning 
“gender segregated but male & female are available”, i.e. read that paragraph 
as “some OSMers might have been wrong, and we don't know how many unisex=yes/no 
tags in OSM were affected by the misunderstanding”



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Amanda McCann]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 20:05 +02:00, Zeke Farwell  wrote:
> The proposal currently states:
>> Meaning of the unisex =yes 
>> is currently unclear: 
>> 
>>  * gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
>>  * facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not.
> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well 
> understood among English speakers to mean "gender neutral". 

I'm a native English speaker, and I agree! I also wrote that part of the wiki 
(years ago). I think some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning 
“gender segregated but male & female are available”, i.e. read that paragraph 
as “some OSMers might have been wrong, and we don't know how many unisex=yes/no 
tags in OSM were affected by the misunderstanding”

-- 
Amanda

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Marc_marc]

Le 06.10.22 à 10:12, martianfreeloader a écrit :

gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated
gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation


gender=not-segregated ?
but unisex==egregate <> unisex=not-segregate has the same meaning,
minus the key change

behind this claim of non-binary people, I wonder how you are
going to inform this for something else than the basic case
of the toilets
a hairdresser where a part of the staff takes care of men
and another part takes care of women
a swimming pool where the pool is shared but with separate
changing rooms
a club with a women's evening one night a week



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Adam Franco]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:12 PM Zeke Farwell  wrote:

> The proposal currently states:
>
>> Meaning of the unisex 
>> =yes is currently unclear:
>>
>>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
>>- facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or
>>not.
>>
>> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well understood
> among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".  Unisex never refers to a
> gender segregated facility.  A tag gender=unisex meaning "gender neutral"
> would be perfectly clear.  gender=mixed would probably be understood, but
> "mixed gender" is not a commonly used phrase so it would probably have more
> potential for mis-interpretation.  gender=neutral would probably be more
> widely understood, but again, I don't see the issue with gender=unisex.
>

My hunch is that non-native speakers trying to understand the word "unisex"
end up decoding its parts as "uni" ("one") "sex" ("sex"/"gender") and then
confuse it with "single-sex". Unfortunately, this isn't a correct
translation. While "uni" is a latin prefix for "one", the term "unisex" is
better understood as "universal for all sexes". See:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unisex

The term unisex aside, in my corner of the world (at an American university
and surrounding town) the modern multi-toilet restroom setup utilizes
individual stalls (with full-length-doors) that can be used by anyone with
an open and shared bank of sinks that are also used by anyone. Both this
multi-stall setup and single-person restrooms (which are not labeled for a
particular gender/sex) are both termed "all gender restrooms" by advocates
for the configuration and those maintaining the facilities.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Greg Troxel]

Zeke Farwell  writes:

> The proposal currently states:
>
>> Meaning of the unisex =yes
>> is currently unclear:
>>
>>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
>>- facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not.
>>
>> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well understood
> among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".  Unisex never refers to a
> gender segregated facility.  A tag gender=unisex meaning "gender neutral"
> would be perfectly clear.  gender=mixed would probably be understood, but
> "mixed gender" is not a commonly used phrase so it would probably have more
> potential for mis-interpretation.  gender=neutral would probably be more
> widely understood, but again, I don't see the issue with gender=unisex.

I find the wiki page confusing, becuase it describes a dispute but
doesn't really describe a set of rules.

Even the description at right "Access to all persons regardless of sex
or gender" is unclear between "people are not treated differently" vs
"people are split based on some characteristic, but all people are
accomodated".

I'll also note that sex and gender, while historically essentially the
same thing, are now talked about as separate, and that it seems
difficult to be accurate in describing the world, both because it is
part of a cultural battle and because if you asked people what bathroom
labels mean it is probably a long complicated conversation with
different answers from different people.  So therefore I think OSM
should stick to recording labels, and perhaps eventually splitting to
record either sex or gender depending on the legal situation of which
one matters in a particular jurisdiction.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Zeke Farwell]

The proposal currently states:

> Meaning of the unisex =yes
> is currently unclear:
>
>- gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
>- facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not.
>
> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well understood
among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".  Unisex never refers to a
gender segregated facility.  A tag gender=unisex meaning "gender neutral"
would be perfectly clear.  gender=mixed would probably be understood, but
"mixed gender" is not a commonly used phrase so it would probably have more
potential for mis-interpretation.  gender=neutral would probably be more
widely understood, but again, I don't see the issue with gender=unisex.


On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 4:16 AM martianfreeloader <
martianfreeloa...@posteo.net> wrote:

> That's already in use in the same proposal.
>
> gender=any - all genders allowed, unknown if there is segregation
> gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated
> gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation
>
> I was wondering if we can replace gender=unisex by something which has
> the same meaning. Currently, gender=mixed is used instead.
>
>
> On 06/10/2022 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > gender=any?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 21:21, martianfreeloader
> > mailto:martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it
> > strange
> > to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex
> > and gender are different properties).
> >
> > Proposal:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender
> > 
> >
> > My suggestion was to use gender=mixed instead of gender=unisex.
> > However,
> > the question was raised whether the meaning of gender=mixed is still
> > easily understood if the feature can only be used by one person at
> the
> > time. I think the answer is yes. But if people disagree, it would be
> > great if they raise their concerns before voting starts.
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[martianfreeloader]

That's already in use in the same proposal.

gender=any - all genders allowed, unknown if there is segregation
gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated
gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation

I was wondering if we can replace gender=unisex by something which has 
the same meaning. Currently, gender=mixed is used instead.



On 06/10/2022 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

gender=any?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 21:21, martianfreeloader 
mailto:martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>> wrote:


In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it
strange
to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex
and gender are different properties).

Proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender


My suggestion was to use gender=mixed instead of gender=unisex.
However,
the question was raised whether the meaning of gender=mixed is still
easily understood if the feature can only be used by one person at the
time. I think the answer is yes. But if people disagree, it would be
great if they raise their concerns before voting starts.

Any comments?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

gender=any?

Thanks

Graeme


On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 21:21, martianfreeloader 
wrote:

> In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it strange
> to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex
> and gender are different properties).
>
> Proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender
>
> My suggestion was to use gender=mixed instead of gender=unisex. However,
> the question was raised whether the meaning of gender=mixed is still
> easily understood if the feature can only be used by one person at the
> time. I think the answer is yes. But if people disagree, it would be
> great if they raise their concerns before voting starts.
>
> Any comments?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Better term for unisex

[martianfreeloader]

In the discussion of the Gender proposal, I noted that I find it strange 
to use the term "unisex" for "gender-neutral" or "all-gender" (as sex 
and gender are different properties).


Proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Gender

My suggestion was to use gender=mixed instead of gender=unisex. However, 
the question was raised whether the meaning of gender=mixed is still 
easily understood if the feature can only be used by one person at the 
time. I think the answer is yes. But if people disagree, it would be 
great if they raise their concerns before voting starts.


Any comments?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging