Proposed features/DisabilityDescription

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The Feature Page for the approved proposal Disabilitydescription is located at Disabilitydescription.


Available languages — Proposed features/DisabilityDescription
Afrikaans Alemannisch aragonés asturianu azərbaycanca Bahasa Indonesia Bahasa Melayu Bân-lâm-gú Basa Jawa Baso Minangkabau bosanski brezhoneg català čeština dansk Deutsch eesti English español Esperanto estremeñu euskara français Frysk Gaeilge Gàidhlig galego Hausa hrvatski Igbo interlingua Interlingue isiXhosa isiZulu íslenska italiano Kiswahili Kreyòl ayisyen kréyòl gwadloupéyen Kurdî latviešu Lëtzebuergesch lietuvių magyar Malagasy Malti Nederlands Nedersaksies norsk bokmål norsk nynorsk occitan Oromoo oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Plattdüütsch polski português português do Brasil română shqip slovenčina slovenščina Soomaaliga suomi svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Vahcuengh vèneto Wolof Yorùbá Zazaki српски / srpski беларуская български қазақша македонски монгол русский тоҷикӣ українська Ελληνικά Հայերեն ქართული नेपाली मराठी हिन्दी অসমীয়া বাংলা ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ગુજરાતી ଓଡ଼ିଆ தமிழ் తెలుగు ಕನ್ನಡ മലയാളം සිංහල ไทย မြန်မာဘာသာ ລາວ ភាសាខ្មែរ ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ አማርኛ 한국어 日本語 中文(简体)‎ 吴语 粵語 中文(繁體)‎ ייִדיש עברית اردو العربية پښتو سنڌي فارسی ދިވެހިބަސް


DisabilityDescription
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Lulu-Ann
Tagging: wheelchair:description:language, blind:description:language, deaf:description:language=free text
Rendered as: speech bubble / for the blind: spoken
Drafted on: 2009-11-26
RFC start: 2009-11-30
Vote start: 2010-01-02
Vote end: 2010-01-16

What ?

OpenStreetMap data needs to become accessible to disabled people.

This includes the need for a possibility to map objects of special interest to the different groups of disabled.

Often the object can not be described by established tags as much as needed.

This proposal shall fill the gap and offer a unified way to add information of interest the disabled, that is not of interest to other persons.


Why ?

  • Because often map icons cannot tell what needs to be told.

Where to map?

  • Wherever an element needs description for persons with a disability.

Tagging

The key consists of the keyword for the disability

  • wheelchair
  • blind
  • deaf

followed by a colon, plus the keyword

  • "description"

followed by a colon plus the 2 letter language code also used in name:*=*

  • en for English
  • de for German
  • etc.

Note: The language extension is of special interest to blind users because the screenreader shall be controlled to pronounce the description in the correct language.

Wheelchair users and other walking disabilities

Tagging examples:


Blindness and visual impairments

Tagging examples:

  • water=fountain
  • blind:description:en=Warning: The fountain does not have a noticable border, you can get wet when standing on the fountain when it is turned on suddenly. Keep away at least 10m radius.





  • highway=bus_stop
  • tactile_paving=incorrect
  • blind:description:en=Danger: The tactile paving down to the underground line 3 guides to you under the steps approximately 13 m after you enter the platform, only 1.80m free hight. Keep right of the guiding line and make sure not to bruise your head.


Deafness and hearing impairments

Tagging examples:



  • relation=route
  • route=train
  • deaf:description:en=Danger: The doors of some lines from this railway stop used to have flashlights when the doors are closing, but due to a technical problem most of them only beep now.

Rendering / Speaking

  • Not displayed in ordinary maps.
  • In special maps for disabled persons the descriptions shall appear at mouse over
  • In navigation software for the blind the descriptions shall be spoken by the screenreader on demand
  • Will be rendered on http://www.accessiblemaps.org , see Look and Listen Map
  • Used by wheelmap ?
  • Mobile navigation softwares that use description? Link here, please.

Often used combinations

For longer descriptions

If you have a longer description of an object, like such for tourists that describe the history of an object, you can use blind:website:lg=* and place an URL to the long text.

Discussion

Please use the talk page.

See request for comment on talk@openstreetmap.org.

See also

Voting

Wiki tip: Type {{vote|yes/no}} to approve/oppose this proposal, type 4 tildes like: ~~~~ to sign your user name & date.

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Lulu-Ann 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - Muckel1986 11:25, 02.01.2010
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - Gipx 11:35, 02.01.2010
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - --Bitsteller 10:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - Some comments: 1) No reason that wheelchair access should "not [be] displayed in ordinary maps" - a wheelchair, or crossed out wheelchair symbol would be fine. 2) Suggest making the language code optional, so "wheelchair:Poor access" would be valid. 3) Suggest proposing a lot more standard tags, rather than relying on free text. Induction loops for deaf people, ramps for wheelchairs etc, are all standard concepts, hence use standard tags. Surprised there aren't any already? 4) I'd try a bit harder to integrate some of these concepts with other standard tags. For example, a bike path is probably wheelchair accessible, stairs are not, etc. Stevage 10:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Answers on the talk page --Lulu-Ann 11:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - motp 13:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - hashier 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. - peter.schoenemeier 15:09, 02.01.2010
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Simone 14:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --K4r573n 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Metehyi --Metehyi 14:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Though I see no reason this should be displayed on most maps, but since OSM also are open for special interest maps, and this for sure is a special interest map with a large potential marked, than this is of corse in place. --Skippern 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --sudev 03:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Christian
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. The motivation is unclear to me. From the "What ?" section of this page - Firstly, "Often the object can not be described by established tags as much as needed" - in this case, new tags should be introduced to describe "the object" as necessary; Secondly, "This proposal shall...add information...that is not of interest to other persons" - this does not seem to be true, e.g. one example given is "The cinema regularily shows movies in foreign languages with subtitles" - I'd like to know that too! I realise this is an isolated example, but it highlights the flaw in this approach: that using a single tag as "a unified way to add information of interest" is not a good approach. Thirdly, if the motivation is only to provide a natural-language translation of existing tags, this should be made clear in a new proposal, with a key less vague than "description", e.g., "natural_language_translation", and it should be proposed independent of accessibility --Waldo000000 20:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Waldo, we are still waiting for your subtitle proposal... --Lulu-Ann 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --go2sh 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Quarksteilchen 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --haddock 16:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Smarties 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Hsrai 04:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Kslotte 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --CMartin 00:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Results

The proposal has reached more yes votes than no votes and has reached the minimum number of votes and is therefore approved.