Proposal talk:Sensory
The sensory key is already used
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.You are not supposed to make new keys clash with existing ones on purpose. I find the existing use for it much more valid. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This proposal specifically addresses this concern in the rationale & tagging sections by maintaining the utility of the original sensory tag for objects which produce a sensory reaction such as visual, audio, smell, etc.. GA Kevin (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree this proposal specifically addresses the concern. It's also an opportunity to add helpful and practical information about a place. There is a need for this information, and it is present on many websites for points of interest such as museums. So finding that information and adding to OpenStreetMap would be very valuable. -PCarewEG (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Utility for one with SPS
Resolved: Addressed.One with such a condition can already take sunglasses and earplugs with them wherever they go, seeing how few places are so considerate. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The idea of the proposal is to make the information readily available to those that may have sensory issues such as those with autism which would benefit from specific information related to sensory information as an accommodation marker. The trend is more places having such accommodations and hours so the relative disuse in a certain area should not discourage the addition of a descriptive, helpful accommodation tag. GA Kevin (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Utility outside SPS
Resolved A person not impacted by SPS may also benefit from similar information marked up. We usually prefer to visit a venue that lacks background music so we can talk. It would be more useful to focus on tagging this and possibly if it is tied to a time interval. Marking whether the venue has soundproofed booths may also be valuable as is much more objective. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agree that attributes for whether the feature plays music, and uses aroma (mall, hotel) or incense (temples), are more verifiable. There's live_music=* , but nothing for recorded music in the background.
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Great thinking, I am also thinking up how best to reflect something like peak times in a future proposal which could be used in conjunction with sensory information, i.e. "The max auditory is loud and peak times are 19:00; Meaning it is likely loud around this time." I am still thinking about how best to propose this peak time information. GA Kevin (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The sensory main key is imprecise
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.This proposal does not deal with things which are "too smelly" to handle, are tactile (textured, sharp, pointy), hot, steamy, vibrating, etc. It concerns only the needs of one with a single, very specific condition (SPS). Choosing "sps" as the main key would not be great, but would make more sense. Please try to chose a more elaborate wording for it. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would adding other subtags for touch and smell support this? Similar formatting to the presently proposed auditory and visual. - GA Kevin (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
sensory:friendly_hours:visual
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.I'd find phrasing such as opening_hours:reduced_light=*, opening_hours:sensory_sensitive=* or service_times:sensory_friendly=* easier to understand. I would get weird vibes by reading "friendly_hours" without having read this proposal, and tags are supposed to stand on their own without referring to documentation. You could actually tag whether they are reducing the volume or illumination level using the conditional opening hours syntax. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Concurred for service_times=* https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-sensory/124039/6
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Implied redundancy and general verifiability
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.In general, tagging all playgrounds as sensory:auditory=* feels wrong. It depends on who inhabits the given playground at the given moment, on what kind of toys it has (whether they squeak for example, the capacity (square meters or how many people it can accommodate). In general, pitches are also considered loud when someone is playing in them, especially if it has metal netting. Also this is "default" knowledge, something implied or computed per the given amenity itself, so marking it redundantly is not warranted. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
sensory:ambient_auditory vs. sensory:max_auditory
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.How verifiable are each? What determines the maximum? If a loud couple enters a bar, it becomes very loud. If an employee within a supermarket accidentally drops a box, it produces a loud noise. I don't see how one could or should map this. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The proposal defines this clearly as "sensory level at typical capacity and activity." Anomalies happen in the world, and such anomalies should not be mapped. The overall purpose of being an accommodation marker makes this tag the most useful when marked at a typical capacity and activity. - GA Kevin (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Objective sound pressure level
Resolved A more objective and better phrased choice for marking the volume of sound generated by an object instead of sensory:ambient_auditory=* is to specify the sound pressure level it produces via audible=yes and audible:spl=* as mentioned in Proposal:Objects_generating_audible_cues.
- As stated in the answer to the visual level comment, for mass adoption of this accommodation marker, simple understandable language should be used. Very few people can discern if a particular area is loud or not based on a pressure reading so the utility of using such a measurement would be to the detriment of those who need the accessibility marker the most. - GA Kevin (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Objective illumination level
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.A more objective choice for marking the illumination within a store is to use lux: [1] You could tag both what corresponds to the normal level and when it's "reduced". -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a more precise measurement but not as useful in an accessibility sense as someone with sensory issues (like someone with autism) may understand "this place is loud" but may not understand "lux is X." Since the idea of the proposal is accessibility focused, the values should reflect what most of those who need the accessibility information can understand. GA Kevin (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Compared to lit
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.How is sensory:visual=yes different from lit=yes? If anything, extending lit with subkeys for illumination level and strobing sounds more reasonable in general. In general, tagging whether an advertising sign illuminates an otherwise unlit section of a footway would be useful, but is not completely possible as of now. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- lit=yes indicated if an item has a lighting element to it, not the level or potential warnings that would be beneficial to those needing such environmental cues. To take your example, an advertising sign can have both lit=yes as well as sensory:visual=yes if applicable. The tags are complimentary not conflicting but also unique in their purpose. - GA Kevin (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- My question concerned whether to introduce new subtags for example `lit:strobing=yes`, `lit:illumination_level=*`, `lit:service_times=...`, etc. -Bkil (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Interestingly enough I was one of the early people who petitioned Walmart to have Sensory friendly hours and have been at a number of the planning meetings for this concept in and advisory role. I will call out that while lit does cover if something like a trail or bus stop is lit or not where is a bit more than lighting that we've sought to address for sensory friendly hours in the 'visual' space and these have actually required us to go back and redo negotiations with some partners. For example there is the huge wall of TVs in electronic sections that we set to black or place a filter over because people to pad for ads to be run in stores for things. I'm simply calling this out as 'lit' does seem a little narrow compared to the real world broader scope of 'visual'. I know this is a specific case but I hope it helps to have that perspective brought to it. (P.S. I'm on ASD but don't struggle with the A/V sensory mine is more texture based, but my second job for decades has been in A/V engineering so I'm a bit of a middle-man advocate in this space.) JPinAR (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
source:sensory_friendly_hours
Resolved: Proposal updated.The wording source:sensory_friendly_hours=* would be more canonical as per [2] instead of sensory:friendly_hours:source=*. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, proposal has been updated to reflect this convention.
source URL
Resolved: Proposal updated.In general, if you found something over the internet, it's always best to tag the full URL so it can be monitored by tools and later used to update the hours as it changes on the website. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, proposal has been updated to simplify a signed source or url string.
source values
Resolved: Proposal updated.Also, the wording "social" feels imprecise and redundant with "website". I'm also missing values for describing whether it was determined through any other form of contact (phone, fax, etc.), on a survey in person and confirmed orally by the owner (i.e., it is neither signed, nor published on their website). -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- This would be difficult to encapsulate all possible scenarios, but possibly the addition of `survey` would be warranted. Which other options make sense here? Remember, there's also the "any tag you like" which may be applicable here. -GA Kevin (talk)
- See Key:contact:* -Bkil (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
On demand
Resolved: Not within the scope of the proposal.I'm missing a way to tag if a small venue is willing to reduce the illumination and sound pressure level if any patron requests it, but otherwise has no schedule for this change. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not find this to be within scope of this proposal, but further refinement can be added once the core proposal is accepted or rejected.
The other value
Resolved: Proposal updated.What does "other" stand for at multiple keys? It's not a valid value because it lacks information. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Other is a way to designate what is on the ground does not neatly fit into options presented and that a note or fixme should also be present with further details. - GA Kevin (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The unknown value
Resolved: Proposal updated.We must never map the unknown on OpenStreetMap, because it would otherwise overflow the database with such useless placeholders. Consider using a fixme=* or a Notes before you start your survey, although that is also frowned upon in certain countries. -Bkil (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, tagging section has been updated.
Smell
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.Your introduction and a comment reminded me about the fact that an intense, intrusive and unavoidable smell indoors can similarly overload olfactory sensors of even individuals not diagnosed with SPS. This is also an important experience for the visual impaired or pets. It would be informative if we could tag the intensity and list all components of what a place smells like: neutral, antiseptics, musty, dust, wood, leather, grease, potted plants, perfume aroma, incense candles, etc. Bkil (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Sensory as a warning or accommodation
Resolved: Proposal scope limited.Through the discussion on the community forumn, it has occurred to me there is a uncertainty surrounding if the Proposal:Sensory tag should be used in a warning or accommodative sense. In the original proposal, it is written from a warning perspective, i.e. sensory levels that may be problematic to those with sensitivities to such. However, through discussion, and particularly this comment from PCarewEG, it seems it can also be interpreted "to indicate that a POI/facility/amenity, etc has sensory accommodations/features/services."
This raises the important distinction that should be made whether the consensus surrounding the sensory tag is a warning or accommodation. This is critically only applicable to the overall sensory=* tag as further subtags such as sensory:ambient_auditory=* have in their options ways to tag such as low level (quiet, for example) all the way to extreme (needing protection.)
I would like the community's input before clarifying on the overall proposal prior to voting. --GA Kevin (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is it more common for a warning or an accommodation to be added about a place overall? From an accessibility perspective whether or not an accommodation is present is helpful. Otherwise, how would one know during which times a place is loud, crowded, etc. - if there is a specific program, opening hours, etc in place to accommodate those with sensitivities is that not a simpler piece of information to verify, and therefore communicate via a tag? -PCarewEG (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Opening Hour vs. Sensory Opening Hours
I don't know what the OSM policy is for adding discussion based on reasoning included in voting responses but I saw a comment on sensory_friendly:opening_hours=* that indicated that this was confusing in some way and that all opening_hours=* could or should be "sensory friendly". However, I see in the proposal a given example where the sensory hours are limited to a subset of the opening_hours=* namely Walmart, Chuck-e Cheeses, and Target all have specific hours typically non-peak hours were a number of item can be implemented including but not limited to dimmed lighting, turning off TV walls, turing of radio and music blasted through speakers, and/or having 'quite areas' with even more overall coverage of the above. Just because a tag isn't applicable to all sensory_friendly=* situations doesn't mean that it can't serve a purpose in some. If there implementation of sensory friendly operations have a more limited window that a locations full opening hours then those need to be distinctly listed in some way, thus this is not a repetition but an item of distinction. If there is feedback maybe it is the naming maybe something disinct from opening_hours=* after all we already have happy_hours=* surely if we can list discounted drinking times we can find space in OSM to support hours people can shops without themselves or others becoming over stimulated. (Bias disclosure I am on the Autism Spectrum and advocate in that space for myself but also for those that may struggle to publically self-advocate. I also work at the Walmart Home Offices and was a participatory planner for their Sensory Friendly hours. I do think OSM has some catching up to do with respect to accessability in various form, but I also recognize that this doesn't mean anything goes but that if it's important enough to do it's important enough to do right so I am curious what feedback people have to present.) JPinAR (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes/No is too course
Quoting M!dgard (talk) here so that I can discuss a bit as while the tag is in voting this feedback will likely come back to a RFC amendment based on discussion. There is some good feedback that maybe can be addressed, maybe not.
- "I really would like a map with sensory friendly places! But I fear a yes/no distinction is way too coarse, leading to subjectivity which doesn't belong in OSM. I can explain from experience as a person with sensory sensitivity to sound: when a supermarket advertises sensory friendly hours, I haven't had any problems so far, but I avoid them anyway because those spaces are still less enjoyable and welcoming sensory-wise (for me) than a supermarket that just doesn't play any music/ads to begin with but which doesn't advertise that fact, or my preferred local store (which has positive sensory impact for me, due to the friendly owners and other factors that are hard to pinpoint). But this convenience store plays soft classical music all the time, which may be a problem for others, so what to tag it with? There's also the question of on-demand sensory friendliness, whether signed or unsigned: small stores and facilities with friendly owners will accommodate many requests which may ultimately end up in a superior experience sometimes, but may pose an insurmountable barrier at other times (social capabilities vary with mental tiredness).
- Put another way, I would find it very very wrong to have to map always-quiet supermarkets or my preferred local store as "not catering to people with auditory sensitivities". In fact, those other stores that feel the need to by default blast music and ads at me, create a substantial barrier, since I have to take into account those very limited time slots, so in effect they are less accessible despite their boasting.
- Additionally, the semi-colon separated list forces mappers to provide a complete list, which is unrealistic and inextensible. I could map auditory experience very well, but it would be way too tiring to assess every place for vision, balance, smell, touch and taste issues. The inextensible part is: if someone documented a new type of sensitivity, it would invalidate all the existing data.
- In conclusion: I like the thought, but I think the personal differences and preferences, which would be hard to describe objectively in the first place, are too great for this tag to work well in practice.
- What I would propose is to make a dedicated category for this information on a platform that allows subjectivity, such as mangrove.reviews or lib.reviews, and make a link between it and OSM."
Sensory-friendly tags is useful, even if it can't fully account for individual preferences, as people with different sensitivities may experience the same environment differently. The point however is not to define best or to say everything not tagged as such is worse and not sensory friendly. This is about providing information that allows people to make informed decisions about options. A good example about options is the while you and I may find Walmart's limited hours and measures taken to be inconvenient because we both seem to have other likely better options that doesn't me everyone does. Walmart covers many rural areas and for many people there isn't a lot of other choices. The fact that Walmart has rolled out nationwide sensory hours for some gives an option even if less than ideal where before none existed with limited to no reasonable alternatives. Let's try limit balance personal preferences here and focus on broad applicability as that is what OSM excels at.
Next, I think OSM is entirely a great platform for presenting spatially proximate locations. Don't believe me look at the KultureCity.org Sensory Inclusive Map it literally is an OSM maps overlay which means there is no reason it can't exist directly in OSM possibly by combining the sensory_friendly=* with a drafted proposal of sensory_friendly:certification=third_party paired with an organization like KultureCity sensory_friendly:certification:certifier=kulturecity and sensory_friendly:certification:url=https://venue.kulturecity.org/venues/lego-store-pinnacle-hills. Not that all venues participate in third party certification but this shows an existing map and for each location a clear 'story' of what a visit will look like on their site and what resources there are. (I'd love to see our local emergency services have care items for people they assist or even stop as my wife deals with PTSD, not mapping but an example of one form of sensory friendly that exists 'as needed/upon request' for later.)
There are however some interesting points made or that this response brought up for me that I do think warrant some rework. First, I do not believe that a single sense classification, despite this being suggested based on existing tagging may be sufficient to not overlap with distinct sensory issues. For instance to address an autism 'bright_lighting' sensory issue you might be inclined to dim the lights but someone with photosensitive epilepsy, also a sensory issue could be effected by 'flashing_lighting' if the lights when dimmed get down into the 3-30hz range, so we already have two visual sense sub-categories that can conflict. Speaking of conflicting I'm also noticing that the present tagging has yes/no mixed with a list of sensory types, but are all those assumed to be affirmative? I've actually been to a retail clothing store with sensory hours but with a makeup counter immediately at the front door, so it's possible to be 'bright_light' and 'loud_noise' friendly but be 'intense_smell' unfriendly. Given the present tagging would that be sensory_friendly=no for the whole? I'm not sure if this means that the yes/no needs to be dropped and a sensory_unfriendly=* sibling needs to be added, or if we simply don't want to cover the negative use case at all then maybe we need to narrow to only people taking positive measures?
The last 'take away' item is some sense of 'upon request' classification that goes beyond all or limited hours and I'll add to this that a large number of theaters have started doing sensory friendly showings with reasonable volume, only dimmed lights, and an expectation that there may be some welcome distraction from the audience so maybe also an 'select events' type of listing in addition to the 'upon request'. On the whole I do support this tagging, but I think a bit more refining might be needed in the short term given the above. JPinAR (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
---
Thanks for your thoughts!
I assumed that the intent was for the list of sensory friendliness domains to be exhaustive, implying a "no" for those not listed. At least that's how all other such lists in OSM work afaik. A set of subkeys that each can get their own values is far preferable (also because it opens up possibilities for more than yes/no). Ironically, the proposal originally had this, but migrated away from it.
Regarding allowing people to make informed decisions about options: well, yes, and I think that when restricting ourselves to facilities that advertise their sensory-friendliness, this does not enable people to make such decisions. I understand your point about suboptimal stores being the only option for some people, I absolutely agree that it would be useful to map the sensory friendly hours somewhere, but I think this is a bit of a cherry-picked "simple" situation. A counterpoint to this is already in my original objection: someone may open a store nearby that's de facto better, but, using the current tagging and staying true to OSM's objectivity principle, there would be no way to tag it as better. My suggestion of moving things to a review platform would cater for all such situations too, by the way! To be clear, I would love for that data to be structured too: people should be able to rate how intrusive the music that plays, is, which could then be rendered in a similar way to structured OSM data. Some programming work might be required still. If I could get some funding, I would love to do something like that myself!
But perhaps something could be done to make things more objective in OSM indeed. Besides certifications, some ideas for things to tag that come up, just brainstorming here: intercom:music=hard/soft, intercom:music=variable (when there isn't a set playlist or volume), intercom:ads=loud/no, intercom:music=customer_controlled (such as in 6463091226
6463091226 where there's a station selector and volume knob that everyone can use, which comes with... interesting social situations). And with some subtag for quiet hours. I'm afraid that the "hardness" (as in volume and music style) of music could be debatable too, though. I'm also afraid it would make things harder for data users in simple cases, but making it "simple" to favour big stores that boast a limited time slot seems unfair. —M!dgard (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
---
I left out a key detail in my initial reply. I work at Walmart’s Home Office and although my job is not in the disability space as an advocate I was someone who pressed for and advised on their pilot of sensory hours which eventually years later was rolled out to all of their stores. I assure you that the example I listed wasn’t as much cherry picked as it was actual real world feedback we received as part of the pilot from a mother that wrote thanking us for the sensory hours because she finally could do something as simple as shopping without it being a big ordeal with respect to finding coverage from people to have sitters and a huge other mess. I can also say quite matter a factly that Walmart’s two press releases (pilot and full rollout) and signage were not attempts to boast the request to the communications team was initiated by the group running the pilot and rollout sticky from a motivation of getting the word out and not some attempt to boast or brag. To be clear we did lean into there being some public good will a bit on the pilot because we had to convince advertising teams to redraw contracts, merchants to let lighting be dimmed which does impact sales especially in produce which wanted exemptions, and facilities to actually execute these and other criteria. However, by the end of the pilot and with our surveys, foot traffic, and sales analysis in hand doing this for the times selected also ended up being good for business in more than just public good will. Without getting into specifics let’s just say a lot of neurotypical people also like when they have an option shopping at times they can shop in relative peace & quite that maybe would avoid Walmart otherwise. Needless to say I am a bit biased on this but I feel in a good way. While I know the limited hours aren’t perfect it was a battle to get them at all, but the pilot was such a success that we get this rolled out nationwide. Is there more I wish they’d do sure, but I can for this specific situation say that I understand a lot of these positions more and at least appreciate that we won some small wars to get the something that is better than nothing and I also know from the feedback is is having a positive impact on individual with emphasis on neurodiverse but also a degree of neurotypical. In short, I’m uniquely positioned to be able to speak about my experiences as a bit of a peak behind the curtain of such a specific example. I will say that I being Autistic and going through this am reminded of a concept that I being very binary in my view of things have to remind myself of and that is perfect is in fact the enemy I of progress. If we only got to do this when. It was perfect it would never have been done but getting the chance to pilot it and prove that this didn’t destroy our business as some opposing binary thinkers believed and there were improvements got this rolled out nationally. I say this to say that I do get much of your criticism objective tagging doesn’t tell a full enough story and you want it to be better and I do too. However, I still want to see something rolled out and progress for me is finding something that is ‘good enough’ meaning it’s logically consistent as OSM tagging and fits a good range of practical real world scenarios. It we can get to that point and get the tags approved then we can do try out good enough and grow from there.
Enough of story time with JP back to that tagging. The idea that I had to be more specific but not get so overly specific and in the weed no one is reasonably going to tag or so subjective that the correctness is constantly challenged (smoothness I’m looking at you) was to focus on a rule that balances between to specific and objective, no offense intercom with hard/soft is likely a bit too far on that end. And not to broad like the current senses proposal is. My thought on balancing this is a modifier + sensory source pairing. My logic here is that to make things sensory friendly you are modifying something in some way (dimming, turning off [no], turning down [reduced], etc.) and then combine this with a source of sensory stimulation lighting, speakers, etc. that are being modified. This could also be provision of mitigation to a source like provided shades, headphones, etc. now I haven’t exactly figured out the how to best implement this from a tagging stand point and this is where I’d love some input but I think you can get in broad strokes the balance I’m trying to strike to get to the ‘good enough’ status of an objective reporting mechanism. As always open to thoughts and suggestions. JPinAR (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
---
Woah, that's amazing that you could let your voice be heard asking for such accommodations!
You're focussing on special accommodations having been made, modifying the lighting or speakers, whereas I'm focussing on what a person experiences in the shop, since I think that's more helpful. If by default there's no music, there's nothing to be modified in the first place! ;)
No offence taken on tags, it's a brainstorm. I understand that it can feel a bit excessive. So in my view it's not only about modifying stuff explicitly; when trying to keep that in mind while staying reasonably objective, I arrived at focussing on the obstacles that are present (or explicitly absent). —M!dgard (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
About the thread below, my point still stands that only tagging places where conscious efforts have been made to make a place sensory friendly, has limited applicability in reality and would not be helpful to make informed choices. And I'm almost certain that it will not be adhered to in practice: mappers will want to use this tag for subjective situations, in order for it to be helpful. And unlike other difficult to interpret tags such as smoothness=* and mtb:scale=*, there's not even a scale here, it's just binary. —M!dgard 🇧🇪 (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Exhaustive list or not?
There is confusion about whether the values for sensory_friendly=* are meant to be exhaustive (omission implying "no") or not. @JPinAR: apparently thinks it is not exhaustive; I think it is, since all other tags work that way afaik. I have great concern if it is exhaustive, as explained in my voting rationale. —M!dgard 🇧🇪 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is not my proposal, but since you tagged me, I'll respond. Let's start with how 'sensory friendly' is handled in the real world, as... "OSM data should, as far as is reasonably possible, be verifiable." Meaning, the things that should objectively be tagged are the things that are documented and/or promoted in some way. Last I checked, no one markets their business or venue as sensory unfriendly or hostile to people with sensitivity issues, so I don't think the purpose of this tag with respect to being "exhaustive" should be focused on documenting and shaming businesses that either have no interest in catering to people with sensitivity disorders. The disability/accessibility crowd know that success will come from celebrating and holding out as example business that take the time to progress their businesses or venues. Thus, the only real 'verifiable' list that should reasonably be expected should include pretty much positive actions taken to improve things by addressing recognized sensory disorders needs. In short, yes!, this should be an exhaustive list capable of covering all the recognized sensory disorders that business and venues can if they choose positively address.
- "Omission implying 'no'" is distinct from exhaustive and this is not how 'all other tags work' in fact access=* which is a parallel to sensory_friendly=* in that it covers restrictive access to places and spaces. Sensory does the same only based on known sensory disorders. However, if a highway=* tag is missing an access=* companion tag, the presumption is not access=no actually it's a bit more the opposite that without an explicit access=* tag to the contrary most highways are presumed to be navigable, even if that isn't actually the case. The nice part about OSM being open is that if it's wrong, it's easily fixed. What I've seen is that the presumption about a tag's presumptive state is aligned with the real world presumption sometimes this is 'no' sometime this is 'yes' and other times, as with this case, it's okay for the default presumption to be 'unknown'. After all, if I go any place that hasn't specified a reasonable sensory accommodation them I'm rolling the dice.
- Story Time, feel free to skip: I was out with friends who wanted to go out to a new frozen yogurt shop I made it about two steps if that in the door and retreated as I often have to do in life. Once outside and away from the door, I could see the problem on one otherwise blank wall there were 6 electric outlets and every one have an odorizing device with more elsewhere that I couldn't see. My friends came out, checked on me, and we with for ice cream that night instead. What I didn't know is that one of those friends called up the store on a weekday and spoke to the manager, the store manager pretty much immediately pulled all of those devices out of the walls with the only one in a back office away from the customer area. I get a call out of the blue from an unknown item very apologetic, and they explained what they did and invited me and my friends back for free yogurt on the house. Any guesses who got a lot of repeat business after that? The point here is that before I walked in that door that first time, that business was like Schrödinger's cat, it could have been the best place for me or the worst. However, if this tag was to be approved and knowing the effort they went through to accommodate me, I'd be happing to giver them a sensory_friendly tag now. If it helped settle things, I can reach out to the proposer and make sure that if the tagging passes that they add a statement around presumptive state when absent to remove any confusion.
- — JPinAR (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Such tags" refers to tags such as vending=* that use semi-colon values, not tags such as access=* that have (semi-well-defined) defaults. vending=milk implies that you cannot buy bread from this machine. The point of this question was simply to clarify whether the list is intended to be exhaustive or not. —M!dgard 🇧🇪 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- In the real world that vending=* implies a limited capacity and thus the default/presumptive state for items not being listed is 'no'. This is not analogous to sensory_friendly=* who starts off with an assumed default of 'unknown' not 'no'. If every Walmart in the US is tagged to their sensory friendly hours for 'lowered_lighting', 'muted_music', and 'static_visual' that doesn't mean that we should assume that therefore no stores with these tags don't have designated 'quite spaces' (because a very small number do). Why should we not assume this in OSM? Because no one in the sensory space assumes this in the real world. So to recap, the list is exhaustive of known verifiable positive modifications/adaptations/improvements, but this does not preemptively mean non-listed items are presumptive 'no', but remain presumptive 'unknown' as if not tagged. — JPinAR (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)