Proposal:Privacy

Privacy
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Something B
Tagging:	privacy=*
Applies to:
Definition:	Indicates how much privacy amenities such as showers or toilets provide.
Statistics:
Draft started:	2022-09-23
RFC start:	2022-09-24
Vote start:	2022-10-08
Vote end:	2022-10-22

Proposal

Property tag that indicates how much privacy amenities such as showers or toilets provide.

Rationale

Tag amenity=shower used both for showers inside rooms, where nude showering is possible, and beach showers, where people should remain in swimwear. Also, indoor showers may be private with stalls, or communal. But possible usage of privacy=* is not limited to the showers, for example this key might be used for amenity=toilets, amenity=dressing_room, etc.

Possible values:

• privacy=rooms - individual rooms with doors. Personal privacy is available.
• privacy=stalls - individual booths, stalls with doors. Personal privacy is available.
• privacy=partitions - partition walls present but no doors. Some degree of personal privacy is available.
• privacy=communal_area - communal room or area without partition walls. Privacy from general passers-by, but no privacy from other customers using the facility.
• privacy=no – the amenities are just out in the open without visual cover from bypassers.

Please note that all of these privacy levels (except privacy=rooms) can occur both indoor as well as outdoor (with indoor=yes or outdoor=yes).

It is possible to use privacy:female=*, privacy:male=*, for multi-gender objects where privacy differs between genders.

It is additionally recommended to tag privacy=communal_area or privacy=partitions with

• female=yes, or male=yes, or gender:segregated=yes which means that you only share the space with your own gender; or
• gender:any=yes which means that you share the space with any gender.

Examples

• 

  privacy=no

• 

  privacy=partitions

• 

  privacy=communal_area

Features/Pages affected

• privacy=* – declared as approved
• privacy:female=* – declared as approved
• privacy:male=* – declared as approved
• Tag:amenity=shower - suggestions
• Update Changelog

Comments

See talk page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 12 votes for, 11 votes against and 1 abstention.

• I approve this proposal. -- Something B (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Coolawik (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. But I think it should be mentioned that female=*, male=*, gender:any=*, gender:segregated=* will soon become obsolete if the Gender Proposal gets accepted. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Rtnf (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dr Centerline (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I don't think privacy can or should be accurately captured in a simple tagging scheme. A few basic features are mentioned, but there is nothing about the presence of curtains, locks, (small) windows or about obscure ways for people to peek or otherwise intrude upon people's privacy. Other than that the likelyhood may differ a lot per location, for example if the women's restrooms are on the opposite side of the building as the men's restrooms.

I think this is the kind of detail that people would like to know, but also something that would either remain too generic to be useful or too specific to still be classified as geographic data. --501ghost (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Full accuracy is impossible in OSM. Cubicles, partitions itself is more valuable than windows or curtains, IMHO. Partitions with curtains is more different from the communal area, than from partitions without it. -- Something B (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. As discussed, I don't like using the word "privacy". Too "subjective" and all-encompassing. Should be separated into different aspects to allow further refinement. Simple common case of carrel desk can't be handled already. --- Kovposch (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Topic is worth being mapped, but not sure if this should be handled feature by feature (like shower=* with indication of type, different from toilets and other objects) or with an access=* like scheme where values are generic enough to be used in various kind of POI. --PanierAvide (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. - To me, the proposal would be better served by focussing on the level or type of amenity rather than focussing level of privacy. I think you have the right idea with the options, but maybe would be better with something like amenity:type=*? Diacritic (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

amenity:type=* seems be synonym of amenity=*. Anyway, this proposal is not about amenities as such, this proposal about their properties, related to the privacy. Something B (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I agree with Something B --MatthiasMatthias (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

amenity:type=* was an example, but you’ve touched on the reason why I oppose this proposal. The tag is describing a quality of something that could be mapped itself instead. Diacritic (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong in amenity=shower & privacy=communal_area? amenity=shower said "it is a shower", and privacy=communal_area clarified it as communal shower. Or this details simply unnecessary? -- Something B (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. Privacy is a subjective result of physical design. I would suggest tagging the physical infrastructure like: “amenity:segregation” or something. Also values like “yes” and “no” should be avoided, because then you’re moving the value to the key. --Tjuro (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Good goal, but the proposal as currently presented is lacking. It should at least additionally distinguish between partitions with curtains (or blurry glass) and those without, as those have huge difference - at least the same (if not bigger) than for example privacy=no vs. privacy=communal_area. It is unclear what privacy=rooms is, and how it differs from privacy=stalls. Also, example pictures should be provided for all values. Then, Features/Pages affected talks about something being "declared as approved" yet links to non-existant wiki pages? What was that about? This idea has potential, but needs another iteration --mnalis (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Stalls is located in one room, rooms implies as minimum one separate one-person room. Wiki pages may be created after approval. See Proposal process -- Something B (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still unclear about the rooms. It needs more text and example pictures to differentiate it. stall is after all just a tiny room (i.e. it has a walls and a door). Is a toilet for a disabled person a room or a stall? It needs more text and picture to make clear what is the actual difference between the two. --mnalis (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Good idea --Emilius123 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. though separation=* would be likely better tag value --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Welp, problem is it is used for roads. That's still better, but needs more consideration. --- Kovposch (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. Privacy is subjective and culturally determined as pointed out by others here. Also even within the categories given, it depends on how these things are implemented. In America, bathroom stalls have separators set so high above the ground you can practically see the person next you pooping sometimes, nobody knows why this is but it happens. --Bgo eiu (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I like the idea of this proposal, but I'm not sure it's ready to be implemented in its current form. "Privacy" could also be used with features such as ATM's, telephones, benches or picnic tables, driveways, footpaths, campsites, picnic shelters, swimming areas, photo booths, pharmacies or similar POS healthcare, hedges or fences, chapels or shrines, transit shelters, , etc. It would probably be very subjective for some of these, but before making such a generic key it would be prudent to consider much broader use cases. If it is just meant for showers, toilets, and dressing rooms, I think the key should reflect that. I like the idea, but I think it would be a much stronger proposal and tagging system with further discussion and revisions. --Ellehan (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, flaps, and ATM numpad covers too. amenity=telephone already has covered=booth. Wonder how that's supposed to work in indoor=*. --- Kovposch (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Useful set of values and while the key does seem a bit broad, no one has suggested a better one yet. --Tordanik 07:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Great proposal, while there will always be gaps in coverage in OSM, it's still the largest open geospatial project in the world and this is a valuable addition to the tagging scheme, especially in terms of accessibility and inclusion. This is valuable metadata to add to the toilets/dressing rooms, etc already mapped in OSM (368k+ toilets, 200k+ sports centers, etc). --Geospacesoul 14:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --KoiAndBlueBird (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Whilst this proposal is by no means perfect, it adds useful data for some people. E.g. while hiking and looking for a campsite.
• I oppose this proposal. Too subjective --Kjon (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. key chosen is way too broad to be used for such a narrow definition of how private specific types of areas are. I initially thought this was going to be updated guidelines on what counts as personal information for mapping purposes. --InsertUser (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think it might work with something like a public shower, but it seems unnecessary or to subjective with other things. I'm not sure what the answer to that is. But I'm sure there's a less subjective tag out there for this either way. Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)