Talk:Key:diaper

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Seems like a poor choice of name for baby changing facilities. "Diaper" isn't an English word; it's an American one (and FWIW the equivalent English word "Nappy" wouldn't be used for these facilities). --SomeoneElse (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

A Few Problems

I think there are a few problems with this tag:

  1. diaper=* tag did not go through the proposal process.
  2. Perhaps this should be tagged as "changing_table" to side step the diaper/nappy terms.
  3. Adult changing tables could be taken into consideration.
  4. The number of facilities provided is interwoven with the key. That could obfuscate the meaning of the tag for programming and cartography, which makes those activities slightly harder.
  5. This should this be somehow coordinated with the amenity=toilets tagging. Since I presume, most are in public toilets.
  6. How do you tag this if it is located in a public toilet within a place such as a restaurant or shop?
  7. What is the tagging if the baby changing table is only located in the female designated restroom?

-- Micahcochran (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the key is not chosen well, if there is consensus, it may be best to deprecate it in favor of something more verbose, e.g. (for a property) baby_changing_unit=* or diaper_changing_table=*, etc. --Dieterdreist (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me answer your questions in order:
  1. True, but it is not compulsory, see Any tags you like, Just Map, Good_Practice#Document_your_custom-tags, Proposal process, New Features, User:Joto/How_to_invent_tags. At present the real issue as I see it is that it is under documented. We should extend the wiki page with recommended best practices
  2. As OpenStreetMap uses British English, hence "nappy" would be the correct term, no doubt about it. Yes, changing_table would work for me too.
  3. Definitely, for example with changing_table:for=adult/child
  4. I don't feel that to be an issue, but if you insist, changing_table:count=2 would also work. It would be less confusing if we only allowed changing_table=no/yes/<count>, though. changing_table:location=room/toilets could confer the other orthogonal meaning, although I prefer micromapping instead as outlined below.
  5. I feel that it is natural to only apply this tag along with amenity=toilets, there is no confusion. Note that it is also mentioned on its wiki page.
  6. Place a node inside the building of the restaurant nearby the POI and tag it with: amenity=toilets + diaper=yes + access=customers
  7. amenity=toilets + diaper=yes + female=yes + male=no (although female=only sounds more natural, it might not be handled as well)
Bkil (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)