Proposed features/changing table

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Key:baby_changing_table
Status: Approved (active)
Proposed by: Valor Naram
Tagging: changing_table=*
Applies to: node area
Definition: Provides a surface for changing the nappy (diaper) of an infant or young child
Rendered as: hidden
Drafted on: 2019-04-20
RFC start: 2019-04-20
Vote start: 2019-05-29
Vote end: 2019-06-12

Proposal

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.

Rationale

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.

Examples

  1. A café can have a changing table in its restroom
  2. A restaurant too.
  3. A toilet available to the public can also have a changing table

Tagging

This section contains subtags for additional data that might be important for parents/carers. Below there's a table describing each individual subkey.

Replacement keys

Key Values Description
changing_table
yes
no
limited
Changing table for changing the nappy of a child is available.
Changing table for changing the nappy of a child is not available. You can ignore the whole key specification when this applies.
There is a facility available but isn't officially built to be used as changing table for the nappy of a baby.
changing_table:fee
yes
no
There's a fee for using it
There's no fee for using it.
changing_table:count <number> The number of the available changing tables.
changing_table:location
wheelchair_toilet
female_toilet
male_toilet
unisex_toilet
dedicated_room
room
sales_area
<value list>
Changing table is located in the toilet for wheelchair users.
Changing table is located in the toilet for women.
Changing table is located in the toilet for men.
Changing table is located in the uniex toilet.
Changing table is in a dedicated_room.
Changing table is in a room that isn't mainly dedicated for changing tables (multi purpose room or the hallway to the toilets).
Changing table is located right in the sales area.
When more than one values in this list apply, the values can be separated by a semicolon ( ; )

Applies to

Nodes and areas

Rendering

Features/Pages affected

Key:diaper - this proposal will deprecate it.

External discussions

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

First voting

Please don't vote anymore.


  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
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 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 I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal 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)
    • Why any data would be lost? It is NOT a proposal to delete all diaper=* tags with a bot Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal 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 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 abstain from voting but have comments 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 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 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 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 I approve this proposal. --Thetornado76 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal 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 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 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)
    • Thank you for your inquiry, I've replied on the talk page. Bkil (talk) 19:49, 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.

Second voting

Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. 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
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~ Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~ If you want don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.


  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Dieterdreist (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Marc marc (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. However, why adding changing_table:count, couldn't we use capacity? --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --S8evq (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. -- Discostu36 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Grimpeur78 (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --LB3AM (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Thetornado76 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --R2d (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. (agree with the capacity comment by Nospam2005) --Zverik (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Mrey (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The proposal "Changing table" has been accepted and will take effect with 12 votes for and 0 against. Thank you all for your voices.

Feature page

The Feature Page for the approved proposal changing_table is located at [[1]].


Archive

Filing cabinet icon.svg

The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.

View proposal content