Talk:Proposed features/Dress code
Keep it simple
I would recommend to keep the scheme simple. No dress:* namespace with a plurality of subkeys. Just one key, e.g. dress_code and a small set of standard values. Don't try to cover every possible situation. My take on it:
- dress_code=formal: Suit, jacket and tie or equivalent required
- dress_code=smart_casual: No jeans or shorts allowed
- dress_code=casual: Default value, no special requirements to dress code
- dress_code=decent: No bare shoulders allowed, trousers or skirts of "appropriate length" required. Otherwise casual dress code
- dress_code=no_sportswear: No sportswear allowed, otherwise casual dress code
- dress_code=no_beachwear: No beachwear allowed, otherwise casual dress code
- dress_code=nude: Required "dress" code for a nudist beach/resort.
- I like your scheme. And I would recommend both of the schemes. Use your simple scheme as base; then, if required, specify deviations from the base with dress:* namespace. --Surly (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep it even simpler
I would recommend to keep the scheme even simpler. No namespace, no attempt to formalize each aspect of a complex and ever shifting attribute. Just tag a freeform description of the dress code, in one or more languages:
- dress_code:en='no beachwear except on Friday evenings before 3pm. Happy joe hats are encouraged.'
- This idea seems to be great as it allows users to put the verbatim dress code into OSM. Also, because the dress code is not rendered, there is no need for anything more rigid than this idea. I would, however, say that the value should either be a commonly known dress code ("e.g." dress_code=formal) perhaps we use Western dress codes for the generic descriptions --DCTrans (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)