Proposal talk:Air Filtration Tagging

Verifiability?

Is the information verifiable ? E.g. if one user gives one set of tags and another user come a year later, can they confirm if it is still correct or not? Is such information about filtration existence and its type publicly signed on the locations? I think the proposal would benefit greatly from examples (preferably with pictures) showing and explaining how user did determine the exact filtration details (e.g. if there is a sign) and how they were tagged. mnalis (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you on adding examples. I don't have any right now but will add them if/when I locate some. Ideally with photos showing signage or other verification sources.

On verifiability more generally, it's a bit tricky. Businesses that go out of their way to clean their air to control indoor transmission and reduce pollutants are still relatively uncommon, so there's no single standard for communicating this information; unlike card payment acceptance where signage is widely understood. Where signage does exist like a notice about HEPA filtration, or a sign signalling that the air is cleaned to reduce airborne infection risk, that's the ideal verification source. Portable air filters may also be visible. Where neither is available, someone surveying could reasonably check a business's website or contact them directly. That said, the air_filtration:pressure=* should be easy enough to verify.

I suspect that the first uses of this tag will be by businesses that actively accommodate the immunocompromised community, who may add the information themselves. That said, every aspect of the tag is based on a real physical attribute, and as businesses begin communicating filtration details more consistently we can add sub-tags as needed.

Would you suggest any edits to the proposal based on this? CanopyFalls (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is the intersection of "set of all OSM mappers" and "set of all businesses that actively accommodate the immunocompromised community" might very well end up being very small set (or even an empty set). I would thus suggest to expend more effort on finding the examples, ideally in form of pictures of signage (ideally taken by yourself, or on sites with permissive image licenses like https://commons.wikimedia.org), or at the very least screenshots of parts of websites detailing that information. Otherwise, if information is not verifiable (and not just in theory, but in practice), the proposal might face difficulties in being approved. See e.g. Proposal:Data center technical attributes discussions/votes. mnalis (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm working on gathering examples. Will let you know when more details about verifiability have been added. I've also had some further musings on in in the community discussion thread here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposal-air-filtration-tagging/145451/8 CanopyFalls (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Purpose and perspective

Is this mainly intended for air purification to improve indoor air quality in terms of air pollution, or disinfection/sterilization to remove germs and virus? Then you mentioned cleanroom, which is not exactly the same either, and needs to add different considerations. There are 2 biosafety_level=* for labs that could be used on amenity=research_institute etc. That's related to negative pressure. Kovposch (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment! I'll address the three points you've raised in order:

1. The initial drive to create the proposal is to highlight spaces that are using air filtration for disinfection/sterilisation purposes but filtration also reduces the number of certain pollutants depending on the type of filtration so I attempted to include tags that would distinguish between mechanical filtration that will help reduce infection risk and particles like Pollen and UV "filtration" that will reduce infection risk but not remove pollutants like pollen. See https://breathe-easy.uk/ which is the initiative that got me thinking about this problem of not knowing which places are safe for immunocompromised people.
2. I know just enough about cleanrooms to know how little I know about cleanrooms; these tags are likely not sufficient for someone to completely map all the attributes of a cleanroom or that the filtration systems used in cleanrooms are comparable to those used in retail/consumer settings. For cleanrooms there would likely need to be extensions to the tag but to my knowledge nobody is adding the exact filtration systems of clean rooms to OSM at the moment anyway. Thought it was worth mentioning as a potential use case but it's not central. I could move discussion of the clean room section to another section about the potential extensions of the tag use?
3. I don't think biosafety_level=* is of much concern to this proposal, to my knowledge the biosafety level of a research facility is more about the types of material handled by a facility. It will effect the minimum standard of the systems they use including filtration but does not mean they use a specific type of filtration, it will also have impact for other things like security and layers of PPE required as well as airlock stages.

I think I'm gonna go back over the proposal with all this in mind and tweak a few things to make the purpose clearer and move discussion about cleanrooms to potential future extensions of the tag. Let me know if you have any changes you'd like to see. CanopyFalls (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

1. I usually see IAQ info in malls and offices, but they are limited to air pollutants, with nothing about microbial. So you will get doubts about verifiability as above, or at least questions on how to find this info to add.
2. I only asked about cleanroom as you listed it as a possibility, but the proposal mostly isn't about it. It can be ignored.
3. As above

Kovposch (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to confirm we're agreed on the 2nd and 3rd points here. I did also realise I missed the bit about negative pressure on your first message and will add a value for negative pressure to the pressure sub-tag and just for completeness add a combined type for when both positive and negative pressures are in use. No point not making that tag comprehensive.

On the verifiability/pollutants point: yes, that's the main gap. Most public indoor air quality disclosures focus on pollutants (like VOC or CO2 levels) rather than microbial/infection risk mitigation. It's worth noting that airborne pathogens are themselves particulate pollutants (or contained within particulate pollutants like drops of water,) so mechanical filtration installed to reduce pollutants like dust or pollen will also reduce pathogen load. This is partly why I chose to tag the underlying filtration technology rather than its stated purpose; a building filtering for pollutants may also be reducing infection risk even if that wasn't the primary motivation.

I'm currently working to find examples of businesses that disclose filtration specifically for airborne pathogen reduction; ideally with photos of signage or documentation I can add to the proposal. If you encounter any examples of filtration for pathogen or pollutant purposes would appreciate if you'd send it my way or add it to the proposal yourself. Otherwise, I'll update the proposal with what I can find.

I've added more stuff to the verifiability discussion topic and would appreciate your eye and any feedback you have there. That aside though have I resolved your concerns around the purpose of the proposal? CanopyFalls (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

As an alternative to air_purification=* below, maybe change to air_purifier=* to focus on portable or room-installed devices familiar to the public first? The proposal seems to require investigating or researching the HVAC systems of buildings, which is naturally less visible and well-known. Kovposch (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Namings

Discussion

• air_filtration=* : As worded above, air_purification=* would avoid the problem of UV lights not being filters
• *:schedule=* : Looks similar to departure_boards=* schedule info, listing the exact schedules, or whether there's a fixed schedule (eg it could be *=intermittent at some regular time). Unfortunately, there's no generic attribute other than lit=* / light:lit=* for lighting. I found Proposal:Differentiation_for_routes_of_public_transport has service_period=* that could describe it qualitatively.
  • *=event_based , *=on_demand : Are they not the same for events?
• *:pressure=* : pressure=* is usually treated as a number. I would use *:pressure_level=* / pressure_difference=* to avoid confusing with other attributes. But fundamentally, this is not only related to purifying air. Excessive pressure causes difficulty in opening and closing doors, which may have accessibility implications. Can be air_pressure=* to be simple.
• *:type=* : Unspecific suffix. But the problem is UV being usually used with other filters.
  • I usually avoid semicolon for finite options, so *:mechanism:mechanical=yes + *:mechanism:uv=yes
  • Or categorize them into *:filter=mechanical / *:filtration=mechanical + *:disinfection=uv
• *:rating=* : Again, rating=* is used in power=substation for the quantity of apparent power. Proposal:Certification *:certification=* could be exploited, but it needs some restructuring as it uses certification=* for any certified aspect. However, a further problem is there are ratings for IAQ itself, besides the filters. monitoring:air_quality=* is already used for outdoor air pollution.

Suggestion

• air_filtration=* → air_purification=*
• air_filtration:schedule=* → air_purification:service_period=*
• air_filtration:pressure=* → air_pressure=*
• air_filtration:type=* →
  • air_purification:filtration=*
    • air_purification:filtration=mechanical
    • air_purification:filtration=electrostatic
  • air_purification:disinfection=*
    • air_purification:disinfection=uv
• *:rating=* : I prefer delaying this, as it's a more complicated detail, and a universal attribute that should be considered comprehensively

Kovposch (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

air_filtration:schedule:hours=* : I would reuse *:opening_hours=* / *:service_times=* , as I don't see much reason to have another attribute as in traffic_signals:operating_times=* Kovposch (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything here, this is a good refactor to the proposal making it far more idiomatic. air_pressure=* being it's own tag feels a little odd given it's an integral part to the air purification system but I very much get the logic of it being it's own separate attribute that can be surveyed separately. perhaps moving it all under a single air_management:*=* tag might make sense then it could include any/all air management strategies like ventilation as well?

Honestly at this point if I add your schema or even a modified version with air_management:*=* you'd basically be a co-author of the proposal. Would you rather add the edits yourself, or would you prefer I make the changes and ping you for review? Let me know if you'd like adding to the author credit as well.

Given the overlap with air conditioning and heating in this might be worth either including those or referencing the air_conditioning* tag in this proposal as related. CanopyFalls (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed air_pressure=* isn't that good. I can't think of an simple solution yet. But air_management:*=* might be too "high level" and broad. It seems an umbrella term as "engineering" that OSM shouldn't use.

Actually, I forgot I should look into the relevant term "air balancing". It's usually near-equal, and slightly positive or negative where needed. Template:Air balance may not show the extra pressure difference here. Seems this should be air_pressusization=* ? That being said, for the possible extended use in accessibility and convenience, or even ordor, it needs to be distinguished from unintended bad air balance (I don't know whether this is appropriate for OSM) somehow.

(Unrelated to here, something I'm interested in recently is staircase pressurization, keeping smoke out when escaping from fires in buildings. Its types are signposted prominently at exit=emergency in my country.)

Kovposch (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't mind how acknowledgement go, eg Eg Proposal:Street_parking_revision is "partly based on" me. You gave the concept and list of ideas. I reacted on I would format or label them, which is both a review of the content, and feelings on how I would want to have them as a user. Many personal preferences there frankly.

From how I see the process, a co-author usually promotes the proposal together, and help respond to questions on behalf. There would be some coordination with the lead author. I'm fine as a contributor, or early "reviewer"/"tester". You can keep the final decision to yourself.

Kovposch (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Will proceed that way in that case! TY for all the help!

This proposal probably won't be updated for a day or so as I've got a lot to think on with all the suggestions here and in the community discussion but will give you a ping on this topic as and when I've worked out what direction I want to take this proposal. CanopyFalls (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)