Hi Rory, Am 2018-04-24 um 18:27 schrieb Rory McCann: > But I don't think that's how "unisex=yes" been used in OSM. The wiki > page says "unisex=yes" is a shorthand for "male=yes female=yes". The > JOSM validator used to suggest that replacement, until I filed a bug[2]. > iD's preset has 3 mutually exclusive options, Male, Female and Unisex, > it won't let you add both male=yes female=yes. > > If I see "amenity=toilets unisex=yes", I would think this is a gender > neutral toilet. If I see "amenity=toilets female=yes male=yes" I would > think gender segregated. Big difference. > > I propose that we start viewing "unisex=yes" on toilets as meaning > "gender neutral toilet", which is different from "male=yes female=yes", > which is "gender segregated".
The current usage of unisex=* doesn't seem to be good tag design but changing its definition isn't a good idea either. Your proposed redefinition of unisex=yes would change the meaning of an established and highly used tag. Please invent new tags. Sorry for the stupid question but are there more types of toilets than the following three? - male only - female only - not assigned to a specific gender If the world were that simple, the following scheme might be sufficient: amenity=toilet + unisex=yes + toilet:male_only=no + toilet:female_only=no: one room for all amenity=toilet + unisex=yes + toilet:male_only=yes + toilet:female_only=yes: the "standard" toilet with separated rooms for women and men amenity=toilet + unisex=yes + toilet:male_only=yes + toilet:female_only=yes + toilet:all=yes: toilet with three rooms (men + women + all) Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk