Proposal talk:Toilets:wheelchair

I look forward to your comments and remarks! --Holgerd (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Availability

The proposal does not define who gets to use the wheelchair toilet, if there is one. Like if it's employee only, customers only or anyone who wishes. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I understand this can happen for public locations who hate people who just come in to go to the toilet. In practice, this never was an issue with the wheelchair users I know (who wants to deny a wheelchair user access?). People with wheelchair accessible toilests seem to be very friendly. :-) --Holgerd (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

that might could be handled by the access tag? --F6F (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(the following was moved here from the end of this page to keep similar discussions together)

And consider both the wheelchar and non-wheelchair case. Does the amenity have a public toilet at all? Is that toilet accessible? Is a purchase required to use that toilet?

These questions are interesting but out of scope for this proposal IMHO. --Holgerd (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Since almost all buildings have toilets, mapping all of them will result in too much clutter. Mapping ones a member of the pubic can access is more reasonable. Access may be by paying a fee, making a purchase, or simply walking or wheeling in. Brycenesbitt (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The expected usage of wheelchair:toilets together with the wheelchair-tag. This is used for publicly accessible locations. The people in wheelchair I know tell me that they are not refused access to the toilet, even if they don't make a purchase in the location. Also, things like the "eurokey" show that they often don't even have to pay a fee. --Holgerd (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The goal of equal access is normally just that: equal. Mapping preferential permissive access to wheelchair toilets is unwise since the access may change based on who staffs the front desk. Brycenesbitt (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is about the physical access capability of the POIs toilet. I suggest to discuss access permission or fee in a separate feature proposal. --Holgerd (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

wheelchair:toilet=yes/no vs amenity=toilets

(in reference to the post by Martin on the talk mailinglist http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-June/067258.html )

"An alternative might be to tag explicitly the toilet and add wheelchair tags to the toilet. I checked with tag info and there are already tags in use: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/toilets "

Yes there is amenity=toilets but this is for buildings which are just toilets. A toilet in a restaurant is just a feature of the amenity restaurant, not a toilet. --Holgerd (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

plural vs. singular

First, I proposed to use singular form (wheelchair:toilet) but Martin convinced my otherwise. For documentation:

It has been suggested to use the plural form "wheelchair:toilets" but since it usually is just one accessible toilet (or none at all), the singular form seems more appropriate. Also, there is no reason to think that people seeking this information would care much about singular or plural form. And we save one letter. One other tag sometimes used to describe accessibility of toilets is "wheelchair:description". But since it's free-form it can not be filtered nor used by projects such as wheelmap.org to help people find these. --Holgerd (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(in reference to the post by Martin on the talk mailinglist http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-June/067258.html )

"the suggestion for a toilet attribute on a POI according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets is "toilets", that's why I suggest you change the wording in your proposal to plural."

Okay, I will change the proposal to plural. --Holgerd (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

wheelchair:toilets vs. toilets:wheelchair

(in reference to the post by Martin on the talk mailinglist http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-June/067258.html )

"IMHO the most logical way would be toilets:wheelchair=yes/no but wheelchair:toilets is currently used far more often."

"wheelchair:toilets" refers to the "wheelchair" tag and is needed in that conjunction the most. --Holgerd (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I prefer toilet:wheelchair as it describes the use of the toilet for wheelchair users. For a map system it shouldn't matter whether it has to search for toilet:wheelchair or wheelchair:toilet but for a clean data structure it's very important. --andreas.balzer 23:17, 17 June 2013 (GMT+1)

Update: + it's not the tag that is needed but the information it represents. --andreas.balzer 23:23, 17 June 2013 (GMT+1)

Agreed, I'll change the proposal. --Holgerd (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why? I think it's mostly about focus: Are you tagging different toilets (toilets:female, toilets:male, toilets:wheelchair) or are you tagging different things for people in wheelchairs (wheelchair:toilets, wheelchair:places, wheelchair:rooms as for example also discussed here). I'd prefer wheelchair:toilets, as most of the data consumers that will use this data will have the wheelchair-focus and not the toilets-focus. --t-i (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of toilets

There is of course the possibility to have the variable revolve around the number of wheelchair accessible toilets with the possibility of yes/no. Any integer greater than 0 can be interpreted as a 'yes' and a '0' or a lower as a 'no'. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

yes/no too limted?

What about e.g. "toilet is reachable (no stairs etc.) but stalls are not wide enough for having a wheelchair next to the toilet seat"? I know a few cases were stalls are equipped with extra handrails etc, but require limited walking abilities to get in ... so there should be extra values like "limited" or "somehow" (actually bad examples, there are probably more exact terms than these) besides a black&white "yes or no" choice? Hholzgra (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

limited is used quite often in connection with wheelchair-tags. You can (and in such cases: should) always use wheelchair:description=* for cases which are neither yes nor no. --t-i (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to combine "wheelchair=limited" with "wheelchair:toilets=yes/no" to show that something is not 100% accessible. Then give details in "wheelchair:description". --Holgerd (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Integrate with non-wheelchair mapping

The page should define what happens for the 9000 or so existing standalone toilets: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dtoilets

standalone toilets can be tagged with wheelchair:yes/no/limited since they are locations themselves. This proposal suggesst to clarify wheelchair accessibility for toilets within other locations such as restaurants. --Holgerd (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)