If those toilets are private, why do they state if women can use them? Isn't that a private matter up to the owner of the toilette?
2015-03-03 15:04 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring <malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com>: > On 03/03/2015 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Mar 2, 2015 12:07 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt" >> <bry...@obviously.com >> <mailto:bry...@obviously.com>> wrote: >> >> > I'm opening a discussion about at least mechanically re-tagging >> operator:type=private >> > into "access=no" or "access=private", so that rendering software can >> choose to omit these locations depending on the map purpose. >> >> I'm supportive of this change. Limited access toilets exist, I don't >> see why we can't broaden the current definition of the tag to >> disambiguate access. >> >> In the case of private toilets, the issue is surely one of privacy. > Within a private boundary, no "amenity" tags should appear at all. Where a > toilet within that boundary is contained either within the main building or > a separate building, then no toilet tags should appear at all. It is a > private matter for the property owners as to the usage of their structures. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
