Sorry, this tag would simply be way too broad. I'm also unsure whether it belongs into OSM (it's moral data, not geodata). -- Sascha silbe 10:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- In places where it has legal implications (death by stoning for showing a woman's face - or less severe) it's just as much geodata as a maxspeed. Alv 11:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- it may be broad, but it relates directly to geographical objects, for example, an amenity=pub that does not allow "work wear" or hoodies (recently experienced by mappers being denied entrance at a mapping party). Probably requires some further classification though - some places forbid certain clothing, others mandate certain items, then there are levels of clothing, or just that the ankles, for example need be covered. --Chippy 14:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I too thinks this tag is too broad and I discourage the use of it. It can easy clutter data and confuse. On the other hand I think that if you are going to use this tag there has to be a standard for it. I would like this page not linked to by any other pages. This would encourage people to use it to much, but I still want this page to exist to set a standard. Gnonthgol 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
should every spatial attribute find its way into OSM?
The technology behind OSM has the ability to represent every attribute of any point, way, or polygon. Should it? Or perhaps OSM needs to be forked in such a way that OSM keeps its mind on streets and generalizing, travel over way, and some other project uses the same database, API, and editors to describe areas? This carries the risk of arguments over types of descriptions resulting in ever-finer forks. RussNelson 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- We cannot deny anyone the option to tag any detail they like (with the possible restriction that tagging should reflect facts and be somehow maintainable). Whether or not you and me and 5 other readers of this page like the idea of tagging clothing requirements, the fact that somebody brought it up and even wrote a proposal means that people are going to tag these things. Remember that even if a proposal fails to pass a vote, people can and probably will still tag the thing in question. So we might as well concentrate on the how because the if is already decided.
- As for the how: Is there any reason to believe that this attribute needs to be machine-readable (i.e. are there maps where different churches are painted differently depending on whether you are allowed to enter them in a skirt or not)? Because it seems to me that the best way to deal with the complexity of the issue is simply having a clothing tag with free-form text in it (e.g. "clothing=adults required to cover hair" or "clothing=shoes must be removed or covered in slippers provided"). It is simply impossible to find a computer readable way to cover everything.
- Where machine-readability is required, I would use special flags, e.g. clothing:nude=yes|no for beaches (oh well, that still doesn't express whether you have to be naked or whether you may be naked... maybe clothing:nude=no|permissive|yes or so? --Frederik Ramm 03:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why not use note=* for tagging this if it is freetext? Gnonthgol 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've also been looking how to tag a nudist beach (primarily), and this proposal caught my eye, as nothing else matched. I also prefer clothing:nude=required/forbidden/permissive, as it offers much more expressiveness than min_clothing=xxx, max_clothing=xxx (as those xxx are not numerical values: does min_clothing=necktie imply everything below, like hat+shoes+face_covered...? and with this you can say clothing:necktie=required, clothing:hat=required, etc). Also, it allows for easier computer parsing - for example, you could easily (provided your routing device has such option of course) set filter to ignore places with "clothing:necktie=required" if you don't have one on you and you are searching for restaurant or such). As for rendering, I wouldn't worry much about that for now. Nudist beach would be nice to get special picture (like the one Lulu-Ann suggests), but I think it should be handled only on more popular tags combos (like natural=beach + clothing:nude=required/permissive), and not generally. For any more detailed non-computer-parsable explanations general description tag could be used. Does that make sense ? Should this proposal be rephrased or an new one created ? --mnalis 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that the color of an icon shall change if a dresscode is entered. I guess only where one applies, there shall be a second icon right of the church or beach, witha symbol for the dresscode. However, all I wanted was to mark one beach in my city as nudists-only... and now I am in a global discussion again *sigh* --Lulu-Ann 17:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd love to see as many tags as possible to go into OSM but in a way I can hide them. If one day search for the nudist beach in a city I'm visiting, why shouldn't OSM be the place to look at? In the same way, some commercial areas are overloaded with icons and I'd maybe like to hide pharmacies and churches. Giszmo 10:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No min/max, simple Clothing
Why do we need the min and max thing? We could describe in real text what is the clothing needed. --Kslotte 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can you pick up the examples and write down how you want to tag them? Lulu-Ann
By adding "at least" or other suitable words:
- no shoes
- face not covered
- no loose objects
- no motorbike helmets
- at least monokini
- at least bath suit
- at least T-Shirt & Bermudas
- legs covered
- shoulders covered
- skirt for women
- necktie for men
- hat needed for men
- shoes needed
- face covered for women
--Kslotte 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've also been looking how to tag a FKK-camp_site (camp_site for nudists). I ended up on this page. As the discussion is 2-3 years old I wanted to see what the community uses in the map and asked taginfo . There I found another key: nudismm  with 5 values (yes, permissive, designated, no, partly), used 586 times according analysis of today compared with 20 for clothing in total.
I feel the origin of the proposal and the intention of most contributors to this talk was to tag FKK-areas, that means areas where clothing is not wished or being naked is allowed. I assume that Lulu-Ann wanted to make a meaningful and comprehensive proposal and so ended up in a tag for something like a dresscode.
- For the item of FKK: I would say we should make a proposal for the key "nudism".
- For the rest: I would prefer "dresscode" instead of "clothing" and exclude all being covered by the key "nudism".
--Rennhenn 09:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Law definition and area
In Brazil the government have for years tried to tell motorcyckists to use helmets, but now, because of a lot of violent crimes done by people wearing full cover motorcycle helmets, some cities have made laws requiring motorcyclists to take off the helmets at times. Two such examples is the municipality of Guarapari where municipality law forbids entry to public buildings, banks, and other buildings and offices of public interest wearing a motorcycle helmet. Also when passing security control by police, or civilian guards, a motorcyclist might be required to remove helmet, or risk a fine (I do not remember value, but for minimum wage receivers this fine is ruin). The other example is Casimiro de Abreu, where they a motorcycle helmet must be removed from the head, or deviced such that the face shows, even while driving the motorcycle, limited to a defined area around the commercial centro of the town. It would be interesting if such information could be availlable on the map, preferredly with a link to mentioned laws. My knowledge to these are posters (not proper signs) posted randomly within the areas mentioned. --Skippern 11:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)