Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Paul Allen


On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 00:50, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

if the goal is to talk about accessibility, then use the wheelchair tag.

That just says if you can get a wheelchair into the toilet.

but if by measuring the height of the table, you think you have done
what it's need to inform accessibility, you are wrong, this detail is
almost anecdotal in accessibility.

No more anecdotal than anything else anybody maps.
 
for all the others, no need to have a meter in your pocket,
it's wheelchair=no, no need to fill heigh=1 or 1.05 or .95 except for 3D

And how about those with achondroplasia?

To be honest, I doubt many mappers would bother mapping the height and it's
probably not all that useful in most situations.  But the fact that somebody here
suggested it means it is likely that somebody will decide to map the height, in which
case let's decide how to do it now.

>     same thing for the description key, I can't imagine when it's useful to
>     describe the table with words so I find it not very useful to promote it

Security through obscurity doesn't work.  As for promoting it or not, it depends very much on
what editors offer in their presets.

the question is "can we expect to have changing tables on a regular
basis that are different from what we can expect with other tags,
which would justify encouraging people to put a description ?

Actually, no.  It's can we expect it on an irregular basis.  Because description is only rarely
necessary for anything.

access=* don't said anything about public view.
changing tables in a private area does not mean that your child
is protected from a public view (I know a changing table in
the private part of the maternity just in front of a windows
with a public corridor)
a changing table in a public toilet can be in a room that
is respectful of privacy.
if you want to inform this kind of info, it's probably better
to make another proposal for another key in stead of promoting
to hijack the access key to talk about public view when using
the feature.

I already suggested that in private mail  to Valor for other reasons.  The developers of
some editors don't like re-using keys with a subset of values and remove such usage from
presets.  If offering the full list of values doesn't make sense they either have to hard-code the
exceptions or refuse to implement it in a preset, and these days it's usually refusal.  And, as
you've pointed out, not only does the syntax differ (only a subset of values make sense) so does
the semantics.  So changing_table:access would be better.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
I need to clarify the access=* key for my proposal to pleace this discussion.

changing_table:access=yes
The changing table is accessible to the public. This means you can change the nappy of your baby without being a customer. This happens rarely.

changing_table:access=no
The changing table isn't also accessible for the customers. We should leave this value anyway because parents don't have any doubt of asking. It applies also for rooms for which you need a key.

changing_table:access=customers
The changing table is only accessible for customers. This is a value that applies to most POIs.

changing_table:access=permissive
The use of the changing table is accessible to the public but access can be revoked at any time for just one or few individuals while some are allowed.

In fact: We can delete this subkey because the most changing tables in POIs are for customers only and permission of using it by others may be given out on a individual basic.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: Paul Allen
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:




On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 00:50, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

if the goal is to talk about accessibility, then use the wheelchair tag.

That just says if you can get a wheelchair into the toilet.

but if by measuring the height of the table, you think you have done
what it's need to inform accessibility, you are wrong, this detail is
almost anecdotal in accessibility.

No more anecdotal than anything else anybody maps.
 
for all the others, no need to have a meter in your pocket,
it's wheelchair=no, no need to fill heigh=1 or 1.05 or .95 except for 3D

And how about those with achondroplasia?

To be honest, I doubt many mappers would bother mapping the height and it's
probably not all that useful in most situations.  But the fact that somebody here
suggested it means it is likely that somebody will decide to map the height, in which
case let's decide how to do it now.

>     same thing for the description key, I can't imagine when it's useful to
>     describe the table with words so I find it not very useful to promote it

Security through obscurity doesn't work.  As for promoting it or not, it depends very much on
what editors offer in their presets.

the question is "can we expect to have changing tables on a regular
basis that are different from what we can expect with other tags,
which would justify encouraging people to put a description ?

Actually, no.  It's can we expect it on an irregular basis.  Because description is only rarely
necessary for anything.

access=* don't said anything about public view.
changing tables in a private area does not mean that your child
is protected from a public view (I know a changing table in
the private part of the maternity just in front of a windows
with a public corridor)
a changing table in a public toilet can be in a room that
is respectful of privacy.
if you want to inform this kind of info, it's probably better
to make another proposal for another key in stead of promoting
to hijack the access key to talk about public view when using
the feature.

I already suggested that in private mail  to Valor for other reasons.  The developers of
some editors don't like re-using keys with a subset of values and remove such usage from
presets.  If offering the full list of values doesn't make sense they either have to hard-code the
exceptions or refuse to implement it in a preset, and these days it's usually refusal.  And, as
you've pointed out, not only does the syntax differ (only a subset of values make sense) so does
the semantics.  So changing_table:access would be better.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

bkil
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
To aid those with achondroplasia, I think it would also be useful to indicate whether adjustable_height is a feature of the table, though I guess they are already prepared to use the floor anyway.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:22 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 00:50, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

if the goal is to talk about accessibility, then use the wheelchair tag.

That just says if you can get a wheelchair into the toilet.

but if by measuring the height of the table, you think you have done
what it's need to inform accessibility, you are wrong, this detail is
almost anecdotal in accessibility.

No more anecdotal than anything else anybody maps.
 
for all the others, no need to have a meter in your pocket,
it's wheelchair=no, no need to fill heigh=1 or 1.05 or .95 except for 3D

And how about those with achondroplasia?

To be honest, I doubt many mappers would bother mapping the height and it's
probably not all that useful in most situations.  But the fact that somebody here
suggested it means it is likely that somebody will decide to map the height, in which
case let's decide how to do it now.

>     same thing for the description key, I can't imagine when it's useful to
>     describe the table with words so I find it not very useful to promote it

Security through obscurity doesn't work.  As for promoting it or not, it depends very much on
what editors offer in their presets.

the question is "can we expect to have changing tables on a regular
basis that are different from what we can expect with other tags,
which would justify encouraging people to put a description ?

Actually, no.  It's can we expect it on an irregular basis.  Because description is only rarely
necessary for anything.

access=* don't said anything about public view.
changing tables in a private area does not mean that your child
is protected from a public view (I know a changing table in
the private part of the maternity just in front of a windows
with a public corridor)
a changing table in a public toilet can be in a room that
is respectful of privacy.
if you want to inform this kind of info, it's probably better
to make another proposal for another key in stead of promoting
to hijack the access key to talk about public view when using
the feature.

I already suggested that in private mail  to Valor for other reasons.  The developers of
some editors don't like re-using keys with a subset of values and remove such usage from
presets.  If offering the full list of values doesn't make sense they either have to hard-code the
exceptions or refuse to implement it in a preset, and these days it's usually refusal.  And, as
you've pointed out, not only does the syntax differ (only a subset of values make sense) so does
the semantics.  So changing_table:access would be better.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
It could be added to the "features" key as "adjustable_height" value.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: bkil
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:


To aid those with achondroplasia, I think it would also be useful to indicate whether adjustable_height is a feature of the table, though I guess they are already prepared to use the floor anyway.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:22 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 00:50, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

if the goal is to talk about accessibility, then use the wheelchair tag.

That just says if you can get a wheelchair into the toilet.

but if by measuring the height of the table, you think you have done
what it's need to inform accessibility, you are wrong, this detail is
almost anecdotal in accessibility.

No more anecdotal than anything else anybody maps.
 
for all the others, no need to have a meter in your pocket,
it's wheelchair=no, no need to fill heigh=1 or 1.05 or .95 except for 3D

And how about those with achondroplasia?

To be honest, I doubt many mappers would bother mapping the height and it's
probably not all that useful in most situations.  But the fact that somebody here
suggested it means it is likely that somebody will decide to map the height, in which
case let's decide how to do it now.

>     same thing for the description key, I can't imagine when it's useful to
>     describe the table with words so I find it not very useful to promote it

Security through obscurity doesn't work.  As for promoting it or not, it depends very much on
what editors offer in their presets.

the question is "can we expect to have changing tables on a regular
basis that are different from what we can expect with other tags,
which would justify encouraging people to put a description ?

Actually, no.  It's can we expect it on an irregular basis.  Because description is only rarely
necessary for anything.

access=* don't said anything about public view.
changing tables in a private area does not mean that your child
is protected from a public view (I know a changing table in
the private part of the maternity just in front of a windows
with a public corridor)
a changing table in a public toilet can be in a room that
is respectful of privacy.
if you want to inform this kind of info, it's probably better
to make another proposal for another key in stead of promoting
to hijack the access key to talk about public view when using
the feature.

I already suggested that in private mail  to Valor for other reasons.  The developers of
some editors don't like re-using keys with a subset of values and remove such usage from
presets.  If offering the full list of values doesn't make sense they either have to hard-code the
exceptions or refuse to implement it in a preset, and these days it's usually refusal.  And, as
you've pointed out, not only does the syntax differ (only a subset of values make sense) so does
the semantics.  So changing_table:access would be better.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Valor Naram
I don' think we should use no, but private. But as others have stated, I can't really think of a changing table that should be mapped in osm but isn't accessible even for customers. 

But us this really a point we need to discuss? Can't we just say that changing_table:access should be used with values of the access key and let mappers decide which one is the most apptopiate?

Am Mo., Apr. 22, 2019 at 14:46 schrieb Valor Naram
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Untitled (198 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

bkil
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:57 PM Michael Brandtner via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don' think we should use no, but private. But as others have stated, I can't really think of a changing table that should be mapped in osm but isn't accessible even for customers. 
But us this really a point we need to discuss? Can't we just say that changing_table:access should be used with values of the access key and let mappers decide which one is the most apptopiate?


Yes, I was wondering about the same thing. That would make both the proposal and the final wiki page shorter and easier to maintain. We should generally provide links to as many items as possible instead of inlining their description and choices, which are subject to change in the future.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Valor Naram
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 8:47 AM Valor Naram <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I need to clarify the access=* key for my proposal to pleace this discussion.
>
> changing_table:access=yes
> The changing table is accessible to the public. This means you can change the nappy of your baby without being a customer. This happens rarely.

A notable exception is the public loos in parks, airports, motorway
rest stops, and similar places. I suppose that you might be a
'customer' by virtue of having stepped into the place, but it's really
more 'access=yes'.

> changing_table:access=no
> The changing table isn't also accessible for the customers. We should leave this value anyway because parents don't have any doubt of asking. It applies also for rooms for which you need a key.

It's pretty common in the US to have to ask for they key to the
lavatory in gas/petrol stations and convenience stores. It's still
access=customers, you just need to request the access token.

In any case, thinking back a quarter-century or so to when my daughter
was a baby, the key question in my mind was usually, "is there a
changing table that isn't in the ladies' room?'  At the time, places
where a man could change a diaper discreetly were almost vanishingly
rare.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
In reply to this post by Valor Naram
There's no discussion concerning the proposal of "baby changing table" anymore. What's happening? Should I start the voting process? Are all words said?

Answer "no" (with or without any reason) and I won't start the voting.


Cheers

Sören alias Valor Naram


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: Valor Naram
To: [hidden email]
CC:


Definition: A tag to mark the possibility to change the baby's nappy 

Please join the discussion and I will spend time to make changes.

Cheerio

Sören alias Valor Naram

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by marc marc


sent from a phone

> On 22. Apr 2019, at 01:49, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I know the tag description, thanks :)
> the question is "can we expect to have changing tables on a regular
> basis that are different from what we can expect with other tags,
> which would justify encouraging people to put a description ?


I don’t mind encouraging or not a description, as long as it is in the wiki alone it won’t change anything, you can add description tags to anything where you feel it is appropriate and generally we should use it mainly for exceptions where structured tagging doesn’t seem appropriate.
As I understand it this wouldn’t often be a description of the table object but more likely a description of the context or circumstances, e.g. if you’d have to ask the staff, or get the table in one place and use it in the next room, etc.

What about changing tables as a feature property? For example in Germany there are chain shops (drugstores) which offer changing tables as a free service to their clients (including napkins). You might not want to position it in the shop (the shop might be mapped as a node) but just give the information that they offer the service. changing_table=* would seem to be the right tag for this property, what about the table as a feature/osm object?
The proposal lacks a definition at the moment, a sentence what the tag should mean.

I would prefer “baby_changing_table” as it makes it clearer what it is about (think about it, you also gave the proposal this title, and not just changing table).

Ciao, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

marc marc
Le 25.04.19 à 22:52, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> I don’t mind encouraging or not a description, as long as it is in the wiki alone it won’t change anything

for those who read the wiki, I think the tags listed there have
an influence, it's supposed to be the ones someone has expressed
an interest in. it can also influence preset-maker.

if we list 11 tags on the page simply because the word has said
in the thread, whereas there are 2 useful tags, when a contributor
will read the documentation, either he will find it too complex/long,
or he will waste his time filling in elements that no one uses.
at least the list should be splited with a section "tags without
any known use/funny tagging/advanced tagging".
As a contributor and user of these data, I am sad to see
that the useful is drowned in the futil.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

marc marc
In reply to this post by Valor Naram
no:) (or more exactly: it has been said but I say it again
in case you missed it)

I notice that the page has almost doubled in size :(
I wonder if you shouldn't split the proposal into two:

a minimalist proposal that takes the rela data from the diaper=* tag
and provides a better schema to encode it, an idea that I fully support.

another proposal to promote all other information (fee: there are really
paid changing tables in the free toilets ? presence of straps or
a pillow: there is really a parent who will base his choice on this
criterion ? changing_table:wheelchair:description:xx : there is really
a utility that a contributor describe in his own language that the
changing table is inaccessible like all those I have seen ?
maybe my experience is not diversified enough

furthermore the proposal was based on the principle of harmonizing tags
with what is done for other objects, but now it introduces
inconsistencies (features=bench <> bench=yes for example)


Le 25.04.19 à 19:16, Valor Naram a écrit :

> There's no discussion concerning the proposal of "baby changing table"
> anymore. What's happening? Should I start the voting process? Are all
> words said?
>
> Answer "no" (with or without any reason) and I won't start the voting.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
> From: Valor Naram
> To: [hidden email]
> CC:
>
>
>     *Definition:* A tag to mark the possibility to change the baby's nappy
>     *Proposal page:*
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/baby_changing_tables
>
>     Please join the discussion and I will spend time to make changes.
>
>     Cheerio
>
>     Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
I've already made a suggestion to split the wiki pages into two parts:

The first one describes the key "changing_table" as a replacement for "diaper". This section will compare the old tagging with the new tagging without introducing new subkeys.

The second one describes the extensions (adding of more information which are fully optional to provide)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: marc marc
To: [hidden email]
CC:


no:) (or more exactly: it has been said but I say it again
in case you missed it)

I notice that the page has almost doubled in size :(
I wonder if you shouldn't split the proposal into two:

a minimalist proposal that takes the rela data from the diaper=* tag
and provides a better schema to encode it, an idea that I fully support.

another proposal to promote all other information (fee: there are really
paid changing tables in the free toilets ? presence of straps or
a pillow: there is really a parent who will base his choice on this
criterion ? changing_table:wheelchair:description:xx : there is really
a utility that a contributor describe in his own language that the
changing table is inaccessible like all those I have seen ?
maybe my experience is not diversified enough

furthermore the proposal was based on the principle of harmonizing tags
with what is done for other objects, but now it introduces
inconsistencies (features=bench <> bench=yes for example)


Le 25.04.19 à 19:16, Valor Naram a écrit :
> There's no discussion concerning the proposal of "baby changing table"
> anymore. What's happening? Should I start the voting process? Are all
> words said?
>
> Answer "no" (with or without any reason) and I won't start the voting.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
> From: Valor Naram
> To: [hidden email]
> CC:
>
>
> *Definition:* A tag to mark the possibility to change the baby's nappy
> *Proposal page:*
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/baby_changing_tables
>
> Please join the discussion and I will spend time to make changes.
>
> Cheerio
>
> Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Valor Naram
I’m against the tag baby_changing_table. As I have already written, changing_table is unambiguous and the most common word for this thing. No need for such a long key.

Am Donnerstag, April 25, 2019, 10:52 PM schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>:



sent from a phone

> On 22. Apr 2019, at 01:49, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I know the tag description, thanks :)
> the question is "can we expect to have changing tables on a regular
> basis that are different from what we can expect with other tags,
> which would justify encouraging people to put a description ?


I don’t mind encouraging or not a description, as long as it is in the wiki alone it won’t change anything, you can add description tags to anything where you feel it is appropriate and generally we should use it mainly for exceptions where structured tagging doesn’t seem appropriate.
As I understand it this wouldn’t often be a description of the table object but more likely a description of the context or circumstances, e.g. if you’d have to ask the staff, or get the table in one place and use it in the next room, etc.

What about changing tables as a feature property? For example in Germany there are chain shops (drugstores) which offer changing tables as a free service to their clients (including napkins). You might not want to position it in the shop (the shop might be mapped as a node) but just give the information that they offer the service. changing_table=* would seem to be the right tag for this property, what about the table as a feature/osm object?
The proposal lacks a definition at the moment, a sentence what the tag should mean.

I would prefer “baby_changing_table” as it makes it clearer what it is about (think about it, you also gave the proposal this title, and not just changing table).

Ciao, Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 26. Apr 2019, at 11:52, Michael Brandtner via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I’m against the tag baby_changing_table. As I have already written, changing_table is unambiguous and the most common word for this thing. No need for such a long key.


I’m not insisting, but I believe for non-natives the prefix would help. E.g. it could be confused with exchange tables ;-)

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
In reply to this post by Valor Naram
I now splited the table into two parts so you can see how the wiki will look like (not equal)

See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/baby_changing_tables#Tagging


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: Valor Naram
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:


I've already made a suggestion to split the wiki pages into two parts:

The first one describes the key "changing_table" as a replacement for "diaper". This section will compare the old tagging with the new tagging without introducing new subkeys.

The second one describes the extensions (adding of more information which are fully optional to provide)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: marc marc
To: [hidden email]
CC:


no:) (or more exactly: it has been said but I say it again
in case you missed it)

I notice that the page has almost doubled in size :(
I wonder if you shouldn't split the proposal into two:

a minimalist proposal that takes the rela data from the diaper=* tag
and provides a better schema to encode it, an idea that I fully support.

another proposal to promote all other information (fee: there are really
paid changing tables in the free toilets ? presence of straps or
a pillow: there is really a parent who will base his choice on this
criterion ? changing_table:wheelchair:description:xx : there is really
a utility that a contributor describe in his own language that the
changing table is inaccessible like all those I have seen ?
maybe my experience is not diversified enough

furthermore the proposal was based on the principle of harmonizing tags
with what is done for other objects, but now it introduces
inconsistencies (features=bench <> bench=yes for example)


Le 25.04.19 à 19:16, Valor Naram a écrit :
> There's no discussion concerning the proposal of "baby changing table"
> anymore. What's happening? Should I start the voting process? Are all
> words said?
>
> Answer "no" (with or without any reason) and I won't start the voting.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
> From: Valor Naram
> To: [hidden email]
> CC:
>
>
> *Definition:* A tag to mark the possibility to change the baby's nappy
> *Proposal page:*
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/baby_changing_tables
>
> Please join the discussion and I will spend time to make changes.
>
> Cheerio
>
> Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

bkil
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
As a non-native speaker, I did need to look up bureau_de_change before
first using it back then, but it does not cause confusion for me
anymore. The most common word in Hungarian for this is "money
exchanger"/"money exchange" ("pénzváltó"/"pénzváltás"), and the clerks
usually sit at a desk behind a glass wall with a little opening or
bars, not around a table. Other words to describe this might be
"currency exchange booth" (probably a bit more official) or "cash
exchange window".

Our word for changing_table=* is something like "diaper changer
[place]" ("pelenkázó") or more like "a place where you change
diapers", the word itself weakly implicates a separate room, although
this should not cause confusion. Interestingly, the dictionary
definition suggests a translation "pelenkáz" = "changing the baby",
but the term itself does not narrow this down to babies and it is
applicable to all age groups.

Do you know a language where this could cause an issue for real?

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 2:25 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Apr 2019, at 11:52, Michael Brandtner via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I’m against the tag baby_changing_table. As I have already written, changing_table is unambiguous and the most common word for this thing. No need for such a long key.
>
>
> I’m not insisting, but I believe for non-natives the prefix would help. E.g. it could be confused with exchange tables ;-)
>
> Cheers, Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Paul Allen
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 09:20, bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:

Our word for changing_table=* is something like "diaper changer
[place]" ("pelenkázó") or more like "a place where you change
diapers", the word itself weakly implicates a separate room, although
this should not cause confusion. Interestingly, the dictionary
definition suggests a translation "pelenkáz" = "changing the baby",
but the term itself does not narrow this down to babies and it is
applicable to all age groups.

Do you know a language where this could cause an issue for real?

Magyar might be one.  :)  I have been led to believe that in Magyar the term for this facility
loosely translates as "diaper changer [place]."  I do not know what percentage of
Hungarian mappers would infer, without looking it up, that "changing table" meant
"diaper changer [place]."

I would guess that any language that refers to such facilities by including that language's words
for "baby," "diaper," or "napkin" might have that problem.  In English, through common usage,
we just use "changing table" but 20 years ago (when it wasn't common usage) I would have
wondered what it meant and what was being changed (I still feel a little uneasy with it).

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
I will put an end to the discussion of the chosen name and will just link to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/baby_changing_tables#Statement_from_the_author where I explain there's no doubt of using "changing table" because it means what it means without confusion.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: Paul Allen
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:


On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 09:20, bkil <bkil.hu+[hidden email]> wrote:

Our word for changing_table=* is something like "diaper changer
[place]" ("pelenkázó") or more like "a place where you change
diapers", the word itself weakly implicates a separate room, although
this should not cause confusion. Interestingly, the dictionary
definition suggests a translation "pelenkáz" = "changing the baby",
but the term itself does not narrow this down to babies and it is
applicable to all age groups.

Do you know a language where this could cause an issue for real?

Magyar might be one.  :)  I have been led to believe that in Magyar the term for this facility
loosely translates as "diaper changer [place]."  I do not know what percentage of
Hungarian mappers would infer, without looking it up, that "changing table" meant
"diaper changer [place]."

I would guess that any language that refers to such facilities by including that language's words
for "baby," "diaper," or "napkin" might have that problem.  In English, through common usage,
we just use "changing table" but 20 years ago (when it wasn't common usage) I would have
wondered what it meant and what was being changed (I still feel a little uneasy with it).

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 29. Apr 2019, at 14:24, Valor Naram <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> where I explain there's no doubt of using "changing table" because it means what it means without confusion.


and that’s why the page is called “baby changing table”?

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table

Valor Naram
> and that’s why the page is called “baby changing table”?

Because someone noted that there exist changing tables for adults. But they're not widespread nor specified enough. No one has the knowleadge to implement it in OSM. But we didn't go further so we agreed on "changing_table" without the "baby" prefix.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
From: Martin Koppenhoefer
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
CC:




sent from a phone

> On 29. Apr 2019, at 14:24, Valor Naram wrote:
>
> where I explain there's no doubt of using "changing table" because it means what it means without confusion.


and that’s why the page is called “baby changing table”?

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123