sent from a phone
> On 25. Apr 2018, at 09:35, Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> wrote: > > My proposal improves the meaning (IMO). A "unisex hairdresser" is like a > "unisex toilet": all people, regardless of gender, facilitated in the same > mixed place. Not many unisex hairdressers are gender segregated, with males > in one room, and women in another! My proposal is that "unisex=yes" always > means "all genders, and not segregated" I don’t think we should load more meaning into a tag after it is out in the wild. Unisex=yes is defined as a shortcut for male=yes + female=yes, and while I would have no problem extending this to people which feel both, or the opposite than what their body biologically seems to say, I think it would not be logical to include people which are neither, nor would it be OK to add implicated meaning about segregation to the definition. For me it would be ok to extend the unisex definition to include also people which aren’t male or female, but it doesn’t work to make it imply segregated_genders=yes. A hair stylist can have 2 rooms, one for women and one for men, and it would be ok to tag it as unisex=yes. Segregation is a different property and should be mapped separately. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
