Proposed features/changing table
|Status:||Proposed (under way)|
|Proposed by:||Valor Naram|
|Definition:||A place for replacing the nappy/diaper of very young children.|
This proposal intends to replace the diaper=* for the reasons given in the 'Rationale' section of this page. Like the `diaper` key this proposal tends to make tagging of changing tables where parents can change the nappies of their babies possible. Should this proposal be approved, Key:diaper will be flagged as deprecated.
This tag is useful because there's the need of such a tag because parents want to know where they can change nappies and which facility provides them with the needed equipment. The Key:diaper is doing that but it should be deprecated and replaced for the following reasons.
- In OSM we use British English. The word 'diaper' is primarily used only in the US and Canada. BE uses the word 'nappy'.
- The meaning of the 'diaper' key remains, without reference to the wiki, unclear. This key is misleading and often misunderstood. For Example: Some folks think of the possibility to buy nappies (AE: diapers), some others think of a disposal of nappies and therefore this key doesn't clearly indicate the presence of a baby changing table.
- The Key:diaper doesn't provide the possibility to tag the presence of a baby changing table inside the wheelchair users' restroom/toilet.
The other keys like highchair=* don't provide this kind of data. And baby_feeding=* marks just the possibility of a place where you can feed your baby (nursing the baby) but not whether you can change its nappy. So both of these keys don't indicate the presence of one or more baby changing tables.
- A café can have a changing table in its restroom
- A restaurant too.
- A toilet available to the public can also have a changing table
This section contains subtags for additional data that might be important for parents/carers. Below there's a table describing each individual subkey.
|changing_table:count||<number>||The number of the available changing tables.|
Nodes and areas
Key:diaper - this proposal will deprecate it.
- Tagging: diaper subkey for wheelchair toilets including a changing table
- Tagging: Feature Proposal - RFC - Baby changing table
Please comment on the discussion page.
- comment without vote (not abstain) moving from diaper=* to something better named is a good idea, but for some reason this proposal introduces also long list of ridiculously detailed tags. Unfortunately I have no time for in-depth review of all of them, so at least for now I am not going to vote for that proposal --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. If a user wants to tag a location where nappy-changing is possible, they either get the corresponding tags proposed by the programme they use, or they know it already, or they have to check the wiki anyways. So the renaming of this tag does not render it more easily usable, but boils down to purely linguistic reasons. And I oppose to deprecate a tag that has been used at about 10.000 instances merely for that reason. Sorry. --Grimpeur78 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. as outlined in the discussion, I neither see the need nor how the valuable old data and use basis can be preserved --Morray (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. It took me many years to realise what a diaper was, other people may have the same difficulty with nappy, changing table allows for diaper/nappy changing and clothes changing and anything else in the future --TonyS (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I am with Mateusz Konieczny here: "this proposal introduces also long list of ridiculously detailed tags". Also, I find changing_table less clear than diaper, actually. I imagine that there could be all sorts of tables where one can change... something. --Westnordost (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I agree with Mateusz Konieczny: this proposal introduces too many new tags. I would support changing "diaper" to "changing_table" or "infant_changing_table" or "nappy_changing_table", but I don't think the other tags are necessary. Please rewrite this proposal and try again --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. This is not only a linguistic issue. The diaper key is also systematically flawed. Possible values of diaper= are yes, no, 2 or bench. This proposal is much more logical. It is more detailed than it needs to be, but I don't think this is reason enough to oppose it. --Discostu36 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. If we aren't offering a standard way to render details, mappers will use ad-hoc alternatives. Similar ones have already been used, but they get lost in TagInfo due to randomness. You aren't required to fill in all the details: it is still perfectly sensible to just add changing_table=yes and be done with it if you don't have that much time on your hands. --Bkil (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I fully agree with the comments from Discostu36 and Bkil --TheBlackMan (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Thetornado76 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. as already aid : this proposal introduces a long list of over-detailed tags and drowning the useful with micro-mapping. please divide it into 2 Marc marc (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. TYhe base tag is great. I'd not use the detailed tagging, cannot see it being usefull, being rendered. But that is no reason to oppose those who what it and will tag them in a lot of differing ways, this at least should provide a common way to tag them. If this fails, just propose the single simple tag - that should pass. Warin61 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. However, I miss the descriptions for the values of the key changing_table:features=* Further, do we assume some values when the keys changing_table:fee=* or changing_table:access=* are missing? --Skorbut (talk) 05:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The voting process ended with 13 votes. This proposal has been rejected with 9 voices approval and 4 voices denial. While there are more yes than no votes, the amount of approval votes are under the 74% mark.