Talk:Proposed features/Barbershop

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Duplicate

This proposal is a duplicate of an already established tag, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dhairdresser with male=yes 19:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Rayleigh1 (talk)

I second that it is a duplicate of hairdresser. Feel free to sub-tag any value of the gender spectrum, any style of tricoloured poles outside, any degree of socialising men or whoever allowed, but do not fragment the tagging by introducing such duplicate. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
male=yes it's not enough since you are discriminating trans females and non binary people.--Cart O'Grapher (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Some barber shops discriminate against women (trans or cis), others will cut anyone's hair. Creating shop=barbershop will not help clarify that situation, we will still need to add other tags to show which shops are inclusive or not. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lgbtq solves the issues of tagging inclusivity when considering non-binary, non-cis and non-heteronormative people. 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Rayleigh1 (talk)
As I've brought up on the mailing list, it is better to actually tag the amenity rather than using assumed sex/gender restrictions. The female=yes,male=yes tags are about restricting access to specific genders/sexes. While barbers do cater (almost exclusively) to male-style haircuts they (at least in the UK) do not restrict access based on gender or sex. Though perhaps a better tagging scheme would be shop=hairdresser, hairdresser=barbers. Access restrictions can then be added if actually present (i.e. male=yes) Casey boy (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
That can simply be solved via the usage of male=primary + female=yes. This will indicate that women aren't prohibited from getting their hair cut there while the hairdresser specializes at catering to men, with, most commonly, male-style haircuts. 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Rayleigh1 (talk)
Again, that appears to be an undocumented use of the female/male tags. Rather than expanding the scope of tags which don't actually describe the situation well at all, why don't we adopt a new, more descriptive and explicit tag for barbers? It doesn't seem sensible to make people (data consumers) infer that something is a barbers by using access tags when we could quite easily just create a very sensible and descriptive tag to make that explicit? Casey boy (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There is also shop=clothes, clothes=women. That doesn't mean it's illegal for men to shop there. The business just doesn't cater to them and you will likely not get the kind of product/service you expect. So if there is a risk of women getting directed to a hairdresser that cannot properly service them, we could use a similar tagging scheme here. So shop=hairdresser, hairdresser=men --Taktaal (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
This is better but still, a few things bother me: (1) it's potentially ambiguous, hairdresser=men could mean that the hairdressers (as in the professionals doing the hair cut) are men, (2) this may get misused and added to traditional hairdressers that also do men's haircuts (so not a barbers), and (3) it still relies on gender stereotypes (which we can easily avoid by something like hairdresser=barber instead). Points 1 and 2 could be mitigated to some degree by good Wiki documentation (but not everyone reads that!) but point 3 still remains. Casey boy (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Seems to me a reasonable proposal ~ hairdressers are predominantly for ladies and the skills and equipment complement this, while barbers have a different skill set and usually are geared towards men, but not limited to them. Introducing male or female = yes feels wrong in this day & age. I think it is a valid tag. User:Russ McD 16:45, 21st March 2021

Creating barber=* instead

Instead of creating a new shop=* value, I thing a sub-tag like barber=yes/no/only would be better.

Why? Let's say we accept your tag, then we need a tag like hairdresser=yes/no on your barbershop, because most barbers also offer normal hairdresser services but some don't. That's not really elegant. The shop=hairdresser tag however is well known and used a lot, so specifying whether beard-services are possible here would be easy and straight forward.

Using gender tags

The shop=hairdresser pages suggests "male=yes/no for tagging a men-only." and map applications could mark this as "barbershop" (although usually the specific name does that). What are the stats on use of that? I also think I've used gender=male in the past, but I don't have the ability to check that right now. LastGrape/Gregory 17:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You can find that out with TagInfo. If you look at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/male=yes#combinations the male tag seems to be mostly used for toilets and showers. As well as mobile money agents but I have no idea what's going on there. This seems to be a Uganda thing where agents always seem to only allow one gender. Anyway, in general the tag seems to be used for legal restrictions. A POI with male=no would actively prohibit males from entering and might call the police if one attempted to enter. The gender=* tag is only used about 1000 times world wide, so that's almost nonexistant. A male only hairdresser operates more like a clothes or shoe shop, so I think their tagging scheme would work better. --Taktaal (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree

I think an alternative tag such as hairdresser=barbers or barber=yes would be representative enough without the need of creating a new shop as proposed by Casey and Anon. --Cart O'Grapher (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's great and I think will actually be more readily accepted by the community than starting out a new tag. I 100% agree that barbers deserves its own tagging scheme (and we definitely shouldn't rely on gender access tags) but, since a barber is essentially a specialised hairdresser, a subtag seems more appropriate to me. Are you going to edit this proposal or start a new one? Casey boy (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)