Proposal:Beauty
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Beauty | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Ookvriflr1 |
| Tagging: | beauty=*
|
| Applies to: |  , 
|
| Definition: | Services that are provided in a beauty shop |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2025-09-09 |
| RFC start: | 2025-09-09 |
| Vote start: | 2025-09-30 00:00:00 (UTC) |
| Vote end: | 2025-10-13 23:59:59 (UTC) |
Proposal
This proposal defines and formalizes the values for the current in-use beauty key.
Rationale
Standardizing the key, making the syntax more straightforward and expandable, increasing the usage of the key both by data and data consumers
Tagging
| Value | Description |
|---|---|
manicure
|
Manicure |
pedicure
|
Pedicure |
tanning
|
Tanning |
skin
|
Skin treatments (e.g. peeling) |
spa
|
Spa |
makeup
|
Makeup (e.g. a makeup artist) |
hairdresser
|
Hairdresser |
hair_removal
|
Body hair removal |
eyelash
|
Eyelash styling |
eyebrow
|
Eyebrow styling |
aesthetic
|
Aesthetic medicine, cosmetician, esthetician, cosmetolog. |
massage
|
Massage |
You can also combine values by separating with a semicolon.
If a POI offers only massage or tanning, use shop=massage or leisure=tanning_salon.
Do not use beauty=aesthetic for plastic surgeons and healthcare:speciality=plastic_surgery for estheticians. Estheticians (a.k.a cosmetician/cosmetolog) are focused on non-surgical treatments (facials, chemical peels, lasers etc.) to improve appearance, while plastic surgeons perform surgical procedures to alter or reconstruct physical features.
Other values shall be considered as in-use.
| Tag | Alternative |
|---|---|
beauty=nails
|
use beauty=manicure;pedicure
|
beauty=skin_care
|
use beauty=skin
|
beauty=cosmetics
|
use beauty=makeup
|
Examples
Features/Pages affected
Tag:healthcare:speciality=plastic_surgery: add a note about beauty=aesthetic/healthcare:speciality=plastic_surgery
External discussions
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
Instructions for voting
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll back down and click "Edit source" next to the title "Voting". Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support the proposal! |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote yes or no but do have something to say. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For more types of votes you can cast, see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I oppose this proposal. The voting started too early for my liking. I particularly dislike the fact that beauty=nails is supposed to be deprecated. I think it would be better to continue allowing it as a non-specific value (as opposed to manicure;pedicure), because it's not always clear whether both are offered (very often only manicure). Moreover, it's by far the most frequently used value (> 28,000!). I don't think beauty=cosmetics should necessarily be considered deprecated either (it's the third most frequently used value!). The rest of the proposal is largely OK, but I find these points too serious. --Goodidea (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. This proposal is not nearly baked enough to be voting on and I agree with all of Goodidea's concerns. In addition, it says don't use beauty=aesthetic for plastic surgeons, but the link in the table is to a Wikipedia article that include plastic surgery as a subset of aesthetic medicine. So we can already expect that beauty=aesthetic is going to be used so broadly as to be useless. I have already explained the problems with beauty=spa and beauty=massage. beauty=makeup is not a good replacement for beauty=cosmetics because makeup is broader, including things like stage and costume applications. This proposal needs a lot more refining before it is a clear improvement over the status quo. --JMGonk (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I do not like how
beauty=nailsis supposed to be deprecated. --Kuba743 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. It looks likes more precise from existing values. --Caboulot (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I don't see the point of this proposal.
beauty=nailsis broad, but if you want to be specific, usebeauty=manicure/pedicureinstead. Or just use a subtag ofnails=manicureif you want.skin_caretoskinseems arbitrary, andcosmeticstomakeupis at least just different and at worst misleading as stated above. --pkoby (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. this way of tagging is just logic, got initiative --JLZ (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I oppose this proposal for reasons already mentioned by others, especially that
<empty>should not be deprecated. It is widely used and still useful as a generic value. I also wonder if a different tagging scheme, similar toservice:bicycle:repair=yesforshop=bicycle, could be better — for example usingbeauty:manicure=yes,beauty:pedicure=yes, etc. --Wildmaps (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Timmy_Tesseract (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. You didn't explain the reasons for deprecating them, while I personally like
beauty=skinandbeauty=makeupmore.beauty=nailsshould remain as unspecified, and to be consistent withbeauty=skinetc. —— Kovposch (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. well I join the other critics partially, but from my own perspective it's easy to say: "let's deprecate nails" but you don't explain what to do with existing tagging? Are we going to replace it with manicure/pedicure? How would mappers know whether both is available or only either of both? Going to replace it with a MapRoulette or what's the plan? It's again a proposal which I would support as a final outcome, but because of the lack of details on what to do in the meantime and how to deal with possible questions/unknown scenarios along the way I feel the necessity to object --Hike&Map (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I oppose, for reasons stated by others. However, I do think the tagging of these features could be improved, probably best accomplished by a
beauty:specialty=*- orbeauty:service=*-style approach. --Lumikeiju (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. relation of "hairdresser" value to Tag:shop=hairdresser remains not clear in the proposal text (among other issues). Note that I raised it in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-beauty/135430/2 - it was sort-of-answered on Proposal talk:Beauty but proposal text was not fixed. Also, what I should tag following this proposal - if I know that they do some sort of nail stuff - but without knowledge whether they do pedicure or manicure or both or other kind of nail stuff? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It's a good idea to discuss the meaning of different
beauty=*tags and how to differentiate them from related tags. This discussion hasn't really taken place, so the proposal isn't ready to be voted on. For example the proposal definesbeauty=aestheticas "Aesthetic medicine, cosmetician, esthetician, cosmetolog", and it relies on Wikipedia to provide the definition of aesthetic medicine. That definition includes plastic surgery, so the tag's proposed definition overlaps with the definition ofhealthcare:speciality=plastic_surgery. Before we formalise this tag, we should discuss where to draw the line between the two. (When I first made this comment, a note was added to the proposal, but the community wasn't notified, so we haven't discussed it, and the definition wasn't changed.) Similar concerns may apply to other tags, for example there is no attempt to delineatebeauty=spafromamenity=public_bath. Maybe the proposal is trying to do too many things at once, because many of the tags deserve some discussion to ensure the definition is precise, before they are "formalised" (which makes them harder to change in the future). Osmuser63783 (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I agree with others particularly about the manicure/pedicure/nails topic. In typical speech, one would usually call these nail salons, regardless of which services they offer. Thus, I feel that they should all be tagged
beauty=nails, and the services they offer could be indicated in a different tag. I have similar feelings about eyelash/eyebrow; I think thebeauty=*value should correspond more or less one to one with a specific type of shop as it would be referred to in common language, and I don't think people would usually be this specific. ZLima12 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)