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

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

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

ebel
Hi all,

I'd like to improve the state of mapping/tagging for LGBTQ topics, and
I'd like feedback.

There is an existing "gay" tag[1], which is used 650 times[2]. But it's
a little restrictive. And it also suggested "gay:transgender=yes" which
is just plain wrong.

So to start off, I'm suggest a simple "lgbtq=yes" tag to
mean "this thing is a LGBTQ thing". I've intermittently used
"lgbt"/"lgbtq" tag in the past, but I think "lgbtq" ("lesbian gay
bi trans queer") would probably be a little better.

So "amenity=bar lgbtq=yes" is what is commonly called a "gay bar".
"shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop, "leisure=sauna lgbtq=yes"
is a gay sauna, etc. We can expand the tagging later, or just use
"lgbtq:(men|women|trans|cis|bears|...)=(yes|no)" straight (😉) away.

For trans issues, there's the whole topic of toilet tagging (unisex,
etc), which is tagged separately, and maybe there's some good way to tag
"informed consent" for medical clinics?

*When* to add a lgbtq=yes tag can be hard to know. In some places a gay
bar can be easily identified by a prominent rainbow flag. Some cultures
are less accepting, so bars might not be so blatant (I've seen this in
the EU). Using the common OSM rules of "local knowledge", people within
the local LGBTQ community are probably the best place to make a final call.

Like many things in OSM, most of the work will be the actual mapping.
It's best to tag areas your familiar with, IME online directories can
often have lots of facilities that no longer exist. At some point I want
to create a custom map based on this data (a la the now dead OpenQueerMap).

Thoughts? Comments? Feedback?

--
Rory

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Visitors_orientation#for_gay.3D.2A
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=gay


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

Re: [Diversity-talk] Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Andy Mabbett
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop,

Wouldn't that be "shop=books books=lgbtq"?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by ebel


sent from a phone

> On 23. Oct 2018, at 20:27, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There is an existing "gay" tag[1], which is used 650 times[2]. But it's
> a little restrictive. And it also suggested "gay:transgender=yes" which
> is just plain wrong.

> So to start off, I'm suggest a simple "lgbtq=yes" tag to
> mean "this thing is a LGBTQ thing".


there may be lgbtq things, but there are also places which are explicitly gay bars, i.e. for homosexual men. If you tag these as lesbian queer trans ... it may not be right

Wouldn’t it be more consistent with what we already have, to add lesbian, queer, trans and bi tags?


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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by ebel
Hi,

On 23.10.2018 20:27, Rory McCann wrote:
> So to start off, I'm suggest a simple "lgbtq=yes" tag to
> mean "this thing is a LGBTQ thing".

Bit difficult perhaps since usually "blah=yes" means that blah is
available or blah is permitted, not that the place is mostly/exclusively
for blah.

(e.g. smoking=yes, bus=yes, vegan=yes)

Conversely, in your definition an "lgbtq=no" would then mean that the
place is *not* specifically an lgbtq place; many users could, however,
misread lgbtq=no (which would be a valid tag for the majority of places
since they don't specifically cater to lgbtq people) as "this place does
not admit lgbtq people" (which is probably/hopefully true only for a
very small number of places).

Sadly I do not have a good suggestion. You don't want "lgbtq=only" since
usually an lgbtq bar *will* admit straight people (unless they're a hen
party maybe). You'd need something like "lgbtq=mainly" - which would
still not be exactly what you were looking for since it talks about who
goes there in practice, not whom the place tries to attract. Perhaps
"lgbtq=designated" combined with "straight=yes" ;)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by ebel
On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Rory McCann wrote:
> [...]
>
> *When* to add a lgbtq=yes tag can be hard to know. In some places a
> gay bar can be easily identified by a prominent rainbow flag. Some
> cultures are less accepting, so bars might not be so blatant (I've
> seen this in the EU). Using the common OSM rules of "local
> knowledge", people within the local LGBTQ community are probably the
> best place to make a final call.

Based on what you wrote i have a bit of a problem seeing a verifiable
meaning of the tag you are contemplating here.  If there is some sort
of certification system for bars based on objective criteria similar to
hotel stars ratings that would be something that can be tagged but a
subjective assessment based on perceived tolerance and friendliness or
by statistics of the clientele seems problematic.

What could make sense in countries with no general anti-discrimination
laws w.r.t. gender identity and sexual orientation is lgbtq=no for
establishments that specifically don't allow lgbtq people.  That would
essentially be an access restriction.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Jmapb

On 10/24/2018 4:27 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:


*When* to add a lgbtq=yes tag can be hard to know. In some places a
gay bar can be easily identified by a prominent rainbow flag. Some
cultures are less accepting, so bars might not be so blatant (I've
seen this in the EU). Using the common OSM rules of "local
knowledge", people within the local LGBTQ community are probably the
best place to make a final call.
Based on what you wrote i have a bit of a problem seeing a verifiable 
meaning of the tag you are contemplating here.  If there is some sort 
of certification system for bars based on objective criteria similar to 
hotel stars ratings that would be something that can be tagged but a 
subjective assessment based on perceived tolerance and friendliness or 
by statistics of the clientele seems problematic.

I know many bars, restaurants, shops, and other businesses that fly a rainbow flag out of solidarity with the LGBTQ communities, but are not, best I can tell, gay establishments in any meaningful sense. Sometimes these flags appear when a business first opens, or sometimes they go up during Pride Week and simply remain indefinitely, like Halloween decor that somehow survives into the new year. I suppose you could interpret them as lgbtq=permissive (though frankly that sounds a little insulting) but not lgbtq=yes.

Obviously, though, gay (etc) businesses are a real thing! And it's a thing that many people would like to know about a place, whether they're seeking it or avoiding it. The venerability is tricky. As Justice Potter Stewart said, "I know it when I see it" -- but I can't imagine how a "certified gay" system would work.

The fact that homosexuality is criminalized or otherwise marginalized in many parts of the world adds to this problem. Some establishments might not want to draw attention to themselves in this way but would prefer to rely on word-of-mouth.

These are definitely tricky waters. My suggestion would be to only tag lgbtq=* if the establishment itself communicates this in an official way -- though written signs, fliers, official business website/social media account. Unfortunately this will exclude a large number of gay businesses, but I'd say that if they prefer a subtler approach it's not a mapper's job to out them.

J

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

ebel
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
On 23/10/2018 23:53, Andy Mabbett wrote
 >> "shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop
 >
> Wouldn't that be "shop=books books=lgbtq"?

Good point.

On 24/10/2018 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> there may be lgbtq things, but there are also places which are
> explicitly gay bars, i.e. for homosexual men. If you tag these as
> lesbian queer trans ... it may not be right
>
> Wouldn’t it be more consistent with what we already have, to add
> lesbian, queer, trans and bi tags?

What kind of places are for gay (men) and not bi (men)? There's
an overlap (let's skip over the too prevalent biphobia in the LG
community). Lumping bi people of all gender into one category but
splitting gay (men) & lesbians seems odd. Often what as called "gay
bars" are open to all of the LGBTQ community. My proposal would allow
lgbtq:male=yes to cover cases you describe, right?

The existing tagging scheme prioritizes gay (men), which is subpar.


On 24/10/2018 10:27, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Based on what you wrote i have a bit of a problem seeing a
> verifiable meaning of the tag you are contemplating here.  If there
> is some sort of certification system for bars based on objective
> criteria similar to hotel stars ratings that would be something that
> can be tagged but a subjective assessment based on perceived
> tolerance and friendliness or by statistics of the clientele seems
> problematic.
Yes, "LGBTQ friendly" is subjective, but I don't mean that. "LGBTQ
bars" *do* exist. If you want a simple rule: Does the business refer
to itself as that? i.e. only map "out" gay bars, for security &
verifiability reasons.


On 24/10/2018 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> usually "blah=yes" means that blah is available or blah is permitted,
> not that the place is mostly/exclusively for blah. Conversely, in
> your definition an "lgbtq=no" would then mean that the place is *not*
> specifically an lgbtq place; many users could, however, misread
> lgbtq=no (which would be a valid tag for the majority of places since
> they don't specifically cater to lgbtq people) as "this place does
> not admit lgbtq people" (which is probably/hopefully true only for a
> very small number of places).
Good point.

One could say "OSM Tags are for machines, so consult the
docs", but I think tags should be readable to humans (one you learn to
speak OSM-tag-ese).

> You don't want "lgbtq=only" since usually an lgbtq bar *will* admit
 > straight people

Yes they will (plus some members of the LGBTQ community are straight, or
in relationship with straight people 😉). Wiki says diet:vegan=only
means "All *or almost all* products are vegan", so lgbtq=only is
consistent with that, but it seems too confusing, and doesn't read well,
so I think it's not the best.

> Perhaps "lgbtq=designated"

That's close, *but* sounds like an official body has designed the place
as a LGBTQ venue, rather than someone choosing to run a business that
way. It could be the best contender.


--
Rory


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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Graeme Fitzpatrick
I've seen & wondered about the "gay" classification on places before.

When going on holidays & checking accommodation / travel guides for options, you often see a number of hotels / motels which are listed as "gay friendly". Does this mean only gays stay there / a majority of guests are straight but gays are also welcome or what?

To me, with a young family, it's always meant that we're not staying at that place!  

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Joseph Eisenberg
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.

This means “no women allowed.” My wife tells me this is still legal in the USA?! There are also barber shops that exclude women (though these shops usually serve straight, gay and bi Men without distinctions)

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?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 6:11 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've seen & wondered about the "gay" classification on places before.

When going on holidays & checking accommodation / travel guides for options, you often see a number of hotels / motels which are listed as "gay friendly". Does this mean only gays stay there / a majority of guests are straight but gays are also welcome or what?

To me, with a young family, it's always meant that we're not staying at that place!  

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
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: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:12 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
I've seen & wondered about the "gay" classification on places before.

When going on holidays & checking accommodation / travel guides for options, you often see a number of hotels / motels which are listed as "gay friendly". Does this mean only gays stay there / a majority of guests are straight but gays are also welcome or what?

To me, with a young family, it's always meant that we're not staying at that place!  

In Oklahoma at least, I find "gay friendly" to be essentially a worthless identifier or someplace that's a little more social than you would normally expect from such a business (but tends to attract and cater to a much older crowd, and I'm 36).  Everyplace is gay friendly, and it's not hurting your family.  Those who are catering specifically to the gay community tend to be nightclubs and vacation resorts at this point, in which case, it's not family friendly because it's gay, it's not family friendly because kids aren't allowed on the property because the liquor and/or gambling laws either severely restrict where kids can go or ban them outright in the first place.

However, I can say if I were in someplace more hostile (such as India) or illegal (like, say, the UAE), and traveling with my boyfriend, I do know that I'd probably avoid someplace that openly advertised itself as gay friendly just because that would be an unwanted police and/or violence magnet, and if we did seek out such an establishment it would be exclusively under the guidance of a local we know and trust extremely well (so, at least in the above example regions, we'd just not try since we don't know anybody in either place).

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 6:56 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> 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.

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 09:56, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is not my area of expertise.

Or mine! :-)
 
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?

 How are "gentlemen's" clubs or "ladies only" gyms tagged?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Yves-2
In reply to this post by ebel
I agree with Frederick here, lgbtq=yes looks like the access tags.
This discussion also reminds me the motorcycle-friendly thread not so long ago.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly
Yves

Le 23 octobre 2018 20:27:04 GMT+02:00, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi all,

I'd like to improve the state of mapping/tagging for LGBTQ topics, and
I'd like feedback.

There is an existing "gay" tag[1], which is used 650 times[2]. But it's
a little restrictive. And it also suggested "gay:transgender=yes" which
is just plain wrong.

So to start off, I'm suggest a simple "lgbtq=yes" tag to
mean "this thing is a LGBTQ thing". I've intermittently used
"lgbt"/"lgbtq" tag in the past, but I think "lgbtq" ("lesbian gay
bi trans queer") would probably be a little better.

So "amenity=bar lgbtq=yes" is what is commonly called a "gay bar".
"shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop, "leisure=sauna lgbtq=yes"
is a gay sauna, etc. We can expand the tagging later, or just use
"lgbtq:(men|women|trans|cis|bears|...)=(yes|no)" straight (😉) away.

For trans issues, there's the whole topic of toilet tagging (unisex,
etc), which is tagged separately, and maybe there's some good way to tag
"informed consent" for medical clinics?

*When* to add a lgbtq=yes tag can be hard to know. In some places a gay
bar can be easily identified by a prominent rainbow flag. Some cultures
are less accepting, so bars might not be so blatant (I've seen this in
the EU). Using the common OSM rules of "local knowledge", people within
the local LGBTQ community are probably the best place to make a final call.

Like many things in OSM, most of the work will be the actual mapping.
It's best to tag areas your familiar with, IME online directories can
often have lots of facilities that no longer exist. At some point I want
to create a custom map based on this data (a la the now dead OpenQueerMap).

Thoughts? Comments? Feedback?

--
Rory

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Visitors_orientation#for_gay.3D.2A
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=gay
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: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

OSMDoudou
Thanks for pointing to it. It was also reminding of this earlier discussion on how to tag the "friendly" attitude of a place, but I couldn't find it back.

"Biker friendly" is difficult to grasp because it's a mindset more than a fact, and we don't map places for their mindset but for tangible and independently-verifiable services and infrastructure which are relevant and, if not unique, at least differenciating.

For example, there is the tag social_facility:for=*: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility:for.

It's a place where people not only are in mindset to help other people but actually deliver verifiable services and may have specific infrastructure.

So, a question may be what are services or infrastructure specific to these bars that are not found elsewhere (or not so frequently found elsewhere).


On 10/25/18, 07:54 Yves <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree with Frederick here, lgbtq=yes looks like the access tags.
This discussion also reminds me the motorcycle-friendly thread not so long ago.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly
Yves

Le 23 octobre 2018 20:27:04 GMT+02:00, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hi all,

I'd like to improve the state of mapping/tagging for LGBTQ topics, and
I'd like feedback.

There is an existing "gay" tag[1], which is used 650 times[2]. But it's
a little restrictive. And it also suggested "gay:transgender=yes" which
is just plain wrong.

So to start off, I'm suggest a simple "lgbtq=yes" tag to
mean "this thing is a LGBTQ thing". I've intermittently used
"lgbt"/"lgbtq" tag in the past, but I think "lgbtq" ("lesbian gay
bi trans queer") would probably be a little better.

So "amenity=bar lgbtq=yes" is what is commonly called a "gay bar".
"shop=books lgbtq=yes" is a LGBTQ book shop, "leisure=sauna lgbtq=yes"
is a gay sauna, etc. We can expand the tagging later, or just use
"lgbtq:(men|women|trans|cis|bears|...)=(yes|no)" straight (😉) away.

For trans issues, there's the whole topic of toilet tagging (unisex,
etc), which is tagged separately, and maybe there's some good way to tag
"informed consent" for medical clinics?

*When* to add a lgbtq=yes tag can be hard to know. In some places a gay
bar can be easily identified by a prominent rainbow flag. Some cultures
are less accepting, so bars might not be so blatant (I've seen this in
the EU). Using the common OSM rules of "local knowledge", people within
the local LGBTQ community are probably the best place to make a final call.

Like many things in OSM, most of the work will be the actual mapping.
It's best to tag areas your familiar with, IME online directories can
often have lots of facilities that no longer exist. At some point I want
to create a custom map based on this data (a la the now dead OpenQueerMap).

Thoughts? Comments? Feedback?

--
Rory

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Visitors_orientation#for_gay.3D.2A
[2] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=gay
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: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

ebel
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
I'm not suggesting tagging "gay friendly" which is too
subjective, and, due to PR, might be less informative now.

On 24/10/2018 23:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> When going on holidays & checking accommodation / travel guides for
> options, you often see a number of hotels / motels which are listed as
> "gay friendly". Does this mean only gays stay there / a majority of
> guests are straight but gays are also welcome or what?

"gay friendly" is supposed to mean that the other guests are less likely
to be openly homophobic, that the staff are not going to have a problem
with LGB¹ people,

You might say "Pfft, but that's everywhere! It's 2018". Things are
better in many places yes, but we're not 100% there yet. I recommend the
talk "All the little things", by Irish drag queen Panti (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIhsv18lrqY ), which opens with: "I am
45 years old and I have never once unselfconsciously held hands with a
lover in public.

> To me, with a young family, it's always meant that we're not staying at
> that place!

Are you sure all your kids are cisgendered & heterosexual? 😉 A noisy
dance club might not be great for 5 y.o.'s, but a restaurant? I'd think
that's fine. I think looking at the type of venue (guest house or night
club) is probably more informative than does or doesn't say "gay friendly".

On 25/10/2018 09:31, OSMDoudou wrote:
 > So, a question may be what are services or infrastructure specific to
 > these bars that are not found elsewhere (or not so frequently found
 > elsewhere).

"LGBTQ bars" might not technically offer much different from boring
cishet bars, but "LGBTQ bar" is definitely a different category of bar,
and is nearly always clear cut and unambiguous.

--

Rory


¹ There's no guarantee that "gay friendly" places are totally
trans/queer/etc accepting


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

lgbtq=primary ? Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

ebel
In reply to this post by ebel
What about lgbtq=primary (& lgbtq:*=primary) for "this venue is run
primary for people of the LGBTQ community, or is primarily frequented by
LGBTQ people"?

lgbtq=majority doesn't cover the aspect of "this venue is run *for*
LGBTQ people" implying it's just a numbers game, and could be applied at
51%+.

There is no clear "opposite" of lgbtq=primary, so this scheme doesn't
have suffer from "lgbtq=yes"'s problem of "How do you tag a non-LGBTQ
venue?" lgbtq=no means it's run by bigots who ban LGBTQ people. Boring
cishet bars can just not have a lgbtq tag.

Thoughts?

On 24/10/2018 20:05, Rory McCann wrote:

> On 24/10/2018 09:37, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> usually "blah=yes" means that blah is available or blah is permitted,
>> not that the place is mostly/exclusively for blah. Conversely, in
>> your definition an "lgbtq=no" would then mean that the place is *not*
>> specifically an lgbtq place; many users could, however, misread
>> lgbtq=no (which would be a valid tag for the majority of places since
>> they don't specifically cater to lgbtq people) as "this place does
>> not admit lgbtq people" (which is probably/hopefully true only for a
>> very small number of places).
> Good point.
>
> One could say "OSM Tags are for machines, so consult the
> docs", but I think tags should be readable to humans (one you learn to
> speak OSM-tag-ese).
>
>> You don't want "lgbtq=only" since usually an lgbtq bar *will* admit
>  > straight people
>
> Yes they will (plus some members of the LGBTQ community are straight, or
> in relationship with straight people 😉). Wiki says diet:vegan=only
> means "All *or almost all* products are vegan", so lgbtq=only is
> consistent with that, but it seems too confusing, and doesn't read well,
> so I think it's not the best.
>
>> Perhaps "lgbtq=designated"
>
> That's close, *but* sounds like an official body has designed the place
> as a LGBTQ venue, rather than someone choosing to run a business that
> way. It could be the best contender.
>
>



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

Re: lgbtq=primary ? Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 01:26, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
What about lgbtq=primary (& lgbtq:*=primary) for "this venue is run
primary for people of the LGBTQ community, or is primarily frequented by
LGBTQ people"?

Yes, I think that would cover it.

Maybe "primarily" would be a (slightly) better word? 

Thanks

Graeme

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