On 03.07.2013 03:10, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Discussion seems to have died down. Any last comments on > toilets:disposal and toilets:position before I open it up for vote?
"byop" is not self explanatory. Wouldn't "paper_available" or something be more easily understood? You also list male/female/unisex as keys for use on entrances, but right now they are documented for use on the amenity=toilets itself. Would that still remain a valid use (say for male/female/unisex only toilets, or those mapped as a single node rather than as an outline with entrances) or do you intend to replace that tagging entirely? And finally, what is your suggestion if some attributes only apply to the male or female part of a toilet? I don't think that necessarily needs to be part of the proposal, mind you - it's already more detailed than most toilets will likely end up being tagged - but I still wonder. Tobias _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
