Talk:Key:diet:vegan
proposed new value
I would like to propose a new value for diet:vegan, namely limited, which is already in use in some places and not covered in the description here - see the tag info in the proposed description table below.
In particular, I find it hard to distinguish between a place that really has no vegan option at all and those that at least could and try to arrange for a vegan option, which, however, is not advertised and usually does not substitute a proper and well-balanced vegan dish. This is where limited would come in handy. In addition, veggikarte.de already encourages the use of the value limited for the vegan option in their description on how to map (https://www.veggiekarte.de/how-to/tutorial_de.html).
In that respect, I suggest a change in the descriptions as follows:
| Key | Value | Description | Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| diet:vegan | only | All of the products the establishment offers are vegan. | |
| diet:vegan | yes | The establishment offers a comparable amount of vegan products. Under that category fall, for example, conventional supermarkets that offer a permanent product line of vegan staple food or restaurants that clearly indicate and offer a comparable choice of vegan meals. | |
| diet:vegan | limited | The establishment does not clearly indicate vegan products but offers some options. For example, restaurants that do not offer a comparable choice of full vegan meals but can arrange for a limited vegan option, e.g. by offering an arrangement of vegan side dishes and/or excluding non-vegan ingredients. | |
| diet:vegan | no | The establishment offers no vegan products at all or too little that is basically not worth mentioning. |
While writing this, I mainly thought of restaurants. I am sure, there are more POIs to consider, so please add these considerations in the discussion. By the way, the same approach would then apply for diet:vegetarian.
PS: I am sorry, I do not use telegram...
-- m3h4, 2021-07-24 12:15 (UTC +2)
- I'm inclined to agree that there seems to be a bit of a grey area between yes and no. The documentation states that no is applicable if a place has vegetarian options, but that these amount to not much more than, for example, one goat cheese salad on the menu. But there are plenty of meat-focussed restaurants that have one vegetarian starter, perhaps two main dishes, and a vegetarian salad. Is this really yes if the restaurant is a steak house with twenty main meat dishes?
- limited would need a clear definition though. Some set of criteria to apply. --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is relevant to diet:gluten_free=* too. A typical example will be a place which does baked potatoes, but all other items are glutinous. Limited basically implies that: a) the given dietary option is not available across the menu (e.g.., snacks, starters, mains, desserts); b) is probably only 1-2 main dishes or c) some combination of menu items may be offered as a substitute (the omelette as vegetarian option). If one is looking for a place for a vegetarian or coeliac person it does not take long to recognise this is a very useful value. In general, such things are best tagged by those affected. SK53 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- User:SK53 User:JeroenHoek User:M3h4 "...offer a comparable choice of vegan meals" that sounds too much to me and it sound unrealistic from my experience. Most of the times they have mostly meat and veggie meals and one or a few full vegan meals. I would say at least 2 meals that are labeled with vegan sounds good to me and I would already consider this as yes.--Hermann-san (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
This "limited" is pointless. Any place that has salt and pepper available passes "The establishment offers very few vegan products.". Similarly, if you can order wilted salad or kebab with meat skipped... What is the practical difference compared to "no"? Can we remove it from page as pointless? (triggered by https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6013 ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I too find "limited" highly ambiguous, problematic and subjective and would rather remove that answer from suggested list of values (or at very least add a heavy and long winded disclaimer to it starting with "DO NOT USE THIS VALUE"). Basically every cuisine=hot_dog fast food stand is now vegan=limited as you can ask them not to put in the sausage (or throw it out yourself), and keep bun and mustard. Or go to a pig-on-a-spit place and order just a undressed (to be on a safe side) green salad and glass of water (but be sure to mention you're ready to pay the full price of whole meal, even if you opted out of majority of it). Yet I have to find a single vegan which would call that "limited vegan fast food stand / restaurant". One would be more likely to get a slap in the face for even suggesting it. Basically, almost every place would become vegan=limited unless they were extremely customer-hostile and/or used absolutely no vegetable or vegetable-derived product - which I find highly improbably to say the least (in fact, even in very-meat-heavy Croatia, I cannot recall a single instance of such place).
- Even more ridiculous would be applying it to shop=supermarket; can people even conceive one that has absolutely not even a single non-animal product (not even a can of peas or vinegar or a bottle of water)?! So, should all of supermarkets should be tagged with vegan=limited if they miss vegan=* tag? I'd say definitely NO. --mnalis (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)