Proposal:Sensory
Key:sensory | |
---|---|
Proposal status: | Voting (under way) |
Proposed by: | GA Kevin |
Tagging: | sensory_friendly=*, (sensory_friendly:opening_hours=*, source:sensory_friendly=*) |
Applies to: | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Definition: | To provide a sensory friendly indication and sensory-friendly hours where applicable. |
Statistics: |
|
Rendered as: | hidden |
Draft started: | 2025-01-08 |
RFC start: | 2025-01-08 |
Vote start: | 2025-01-30 00:00:00 (UTC) |
Vote end: | 2025-02-14 23:59:59 (UTC) |
Proposal
Sensory friendly on Wikipedia
To provide a sensory friendly indication and sensory-friendly hours where applicable.
Rationale
Sensory Processing Sensitivity accommodations have become an important part of an ever-increasingly inclusive world. Many retailers, businesses, and offices have started to implement "sensory friendly" hours to cater to the needs of these individuals, such as Walmart's Sensory-Friendly Hours. People who have autism and similar conditions can have Sensory Issues that would benefit greatly by shops, cafes, and other destinations having clear sensory level information and when (where applicable) sensory-friendly hours exist.
Previously, Key:sensory had been proposed (and approved) for use in playground contexts surrounding items that produce a sensory reaction such as visual, tactile, audible, and smell. Usage of this tag is minimal however the utility of it should be retained. Similarly, the Proposal:Quiet hours had some great groundwork for the sensory friendly hours aspect but did not include sensory level information, source, or other relevant information that those who have sensory processing sensitivity may find useful.
Sensory was chosen over quiet or other options due to the scientific research in this area using the term sensory, despite many retailers using the term "Quiet Hours" to also include visual stimuli.
Sensory friendly information does not need to be certified to be tagged, but having a certification should give OSM contributors more confidence in the information they are adding is useful, accurate, and understandable.
Examples of Certification Authorities
- International Board of Credentialing and Continuing Education Standards - International
- Sensory Friendly Solutions Certification - Canada
- Kulture City, Sensory City, & Certified Autism Centers - United States of America
- National Autistic Society & National Sensory Network - United Kingdom
- Autism Friendly Spaces - European Union
Tagging
Tag | Tagged On | Options | Description | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
sensory_friendly=* | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
yes no |
Used to communicate if a particular ![]() ![]() ![]() |
sensory_friendly=smell;hearing |
sensory_friendly:opening_hours=* | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Use opening_hours=* syntax | Describes if something has designated sensory friendly hours. | sensory_friendly=hearing
sensory_friendly:opening_hours=Mo-Su 08:00-10:00 |
source:sensory_friendly=* | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
signed/URL String | Describes the source of the sensory-friendly information. | sensory_friendly:opening_hours=Mo-Fr 07:00-09:00; Sa 12:00-14:00
source:sensory_friendly=signed;https://www.example.com |
For complex or rare circumstances, the standard conditional restrictions can be applied. A description may also be warranted if a sensory friendly feature is not easily understood by the sense it stimulates. It is recommended to use sensory_friendly:description=* in such cases.
Changes based on community feedback
Community feedback in the forum has been robust and fruitful on this topic. It is clear the need for sensory information is popular however the original proposal aimed to do too much. As such the following tags have been removed from the proposal and should not be considered part of this proposal moving forward:
- sensory:ambient_auditory=*
- sensory:ambient_visual=*
- sensory:max_auditory=*
- sensory:max_visual=*
- sensory:friendly_hours:auditory=*
- sensory:friendly_hours:visual=*
- sensory:auditory=*
- sensory:visual=*
These changes reflect a narrowing of scope from the initial indicator, levels, and hours, to be simply an indicator and hours where applicable. The levels of sensory stimuli is an important , and may be brought forward in the future, but will remain out of scope for this initial proposal.
Additionally, the following changes have been made to better clarify their intention and simplify their use:
- sensory=* as previously proposed will be replaced by sensory_friendly=* to better clarify it is an accommodation not a warning. sensory=* as it's approved use as an object which emits sensory reaction remains unchanged by this proposal.
- To better align with the widely understood syntax of opening_hours=*, and to match the overall
sensory_friendly=*, sensory_friendly:opening_hours=* was refined from the originally proposed source:sensory:friendly_hours=*.
- To match the new proposed convention, source:sensory:friendly_hours=* has been updated to source:sensory_friendly:opening_hours=*.
Further Refinements
- source:sensory_friendly:opening_hours=* has been refined to source:sensory_friendly=* to reflect a contributor can list sources of sensory-friendly information as well as hours.
- Added sensory_friendly=yes and sensory_friendly=no to the list of options for the
sensory_friendly=* to reflect if a contributor knows a location is or is not sensory friendly but has no further details.
Features/Pages affected
External discussions
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
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 approve this proposal. --11000matias (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. sensory_friendly=* is not something that will "open", so should not use sensory_friendly:opening_hours=* with mismatched and unsuitable semantics. There are all-day friendly facilities, or dedicated facilities as a “quiet room” / “sensory room” / “calm spaces”, that this would overlap with the meaning of sensory_friendly=* as an attribute in the parent feature, or their opening_hours=* as a separate feature. —— Kovposch (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. I really would like a map with sensory friendly places! But I fear a yes/no distinction is way too coarse, leading to subjectivity which doesn't belong in OSM. I can explain from experience as a person with sensory sensitivity to sound: when a supermarket advertises sensory friendly hours, I haven't had any problems so far, but I avoid them anyway because those spaces are still less enjoyable and welcoming sensory-wise (for me) than a supermarket that just doesn't play any music/ads to begin with but which doesn't advertise that fact, or my preferred local store (which has positive sensory impact for me, due to the friendly owners and other factors that are hard to pinpoint). But this convenience store plays soft classical music all the time, which may be a problem for others, so what to tag it with? There's also the question of on-demand sensory friendliness, whether signed or unsigned: small stores and facilities with friendly owners will accommodate many requests which may ultimately end up in a superior experience sometimes, but may pose an insurmountable barrier at other times (social capabilities vary with mental tiredness).
- Put another way, I would find it very very wrong to have to map always-quiet supermarkets or my preferred local store as "not catering to people with auditory sensitivities". In fact, those other stores that feel the need to by default blast music and ads at me, create a substantial barrier, since I have to take into account those very limited time slots, so in effect they are less accessible despite their boasting.
- Additionally, the semi-colon separated list forces mappers to provide a complete list, which is unrealistic and inextensible. I could map auditory experience very well, but it would be way too tiring to assess every place for vision, balance, smell, touch and taste issues. The inextensible part is: if someone documented a new type of sensitivity, it would invalidate all the existing data.
- In conclusion: I like the thought, but I think the personal differences and preferences, which would be hard to describe objectively in the first place, are too great for this tag to work well in practice.
- What I would propose is to make a dedicated category for this information on a platform that allows subjectivity, such as mangrove.reviews or lib.reviews, and make a link between it and OSM. —M!dgard (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. I do believe that this tag could use some further refinement within the namespace portion. I think opening_hours is fine as a subset of hours with the assumption that a lack of tagging includes all hour. I do think an 'upon request' and 'event based' (movie showings) tagging would mature this further. I also think that sensory by sense can be too broad and I'd like to see a suggest key values that balance broadness and specificity by combining a modifier and sensory source (i.e. dimmed_lighting or nomusic_intercom). Lastly, I think that this tagging is fine for emphasising positive objective steps realizing that these may or may not be sufficient for all individuals. I'd be curious about a possible negative counterpart to this tagging for non-sensory friendly, this could be maybe a conbination a hazard:sensory that would then have similar keys but opposed like music_intercom or intense_odor. However, a negative would come with risk when they are in an objective space and while benefitual it might be a liability risk. --JPinAR (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
I approve this proposal. --HugoC01 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)