Is this obsolete now? --Lulu-Ann 15:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting proposal. Yes, it is a touchy subject, but maybe it can still be done in a neutral manner. It would be interesting to make discrimination visiable on a map. But it is a bit tricky to get things right, I fear.
First of all, the verifiability principle must be stressed here very hard. It can be harmful if someone adds discrimination=* when there is not actually discrimination. So the “official policy” principle mentioned in this proposal is already a good suggestion. Also: Does OpenStreetMap has a legal disclaimer somewhere with regards to incorrect information? Because this would probably be very important. ;-)
Another tricky thing in this proposal would be to get the values right. There should be a list of well-defined values, ideally describing the subject as neutral as possible. So no tagging discrimination=niggas or something like that. ;-)
Another thing I would to see is a crystal-clear definition of what “discrimination” means in the context of this tag, so the mappers can clearly see when adding the tag is appropriate and when it isn't.
I suggest a better scheme, like discrimination=yes (to indicate that discrimination takes place) and discrimination:against:XXX=yes, where “XXX” is a person group. I am not sure if discrimination=no should exist because I am not sure how one could properly verify this.
If we are pedantic, we would have to add this tag to more places than we would like to. We could even say that shop=* and anything with fee=* almost always implies discrimination, because they discriminate those who can't afford stuff based on a official policy. ;-)
Another potential conflict I see is with the wheelchair=* tag. Should this be viewed as discrimination (for the purposes of this tag? Wheelchair-unaccessible places do not neccessarily exist in order to piss off the disabled people, so it is not neccessaily intentional. The question is if discrimination=* should be used for “de facto” discrimination as well or if it only and without exceptions should be used based on official policy.
There are probably other questions to be answered. Clearly the proposal is interesting, but I would like to see more thought-work put into it.
I also strongly suggest to anyone NOT to use this key until it has been well-defined and fleshed out. The subject is simply waaay too touchy. ;-)
Official policy sounds good
I don't know if the president of Ecuador is an OSMapper, but he officially removed the access fee (for all) at this beach (and others too, probably). Galapagos still is 12$ for locals, $100 for foreigners, though. And the airfare is higher for foreigners as well, dubious explanations given. I too think that "official policy" is better, since "discrimination" is subjective. The white might not think of apartheid as discrimination, but the black might. I think a map should be neutral to this, and "official policy" sounds good :) Arnotixe (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
No Access/Service for a Group
There are already ways to denote this for some particular situations. male=yes and female=yes access tags are used for facilities only serving one gender such as a male-only club. Cemeteries/grave yards distinguish the religion burials.
If a business posts a sign that says, "We do not serve gay people," as a bisexual man, I don't even want to step foot in that business. The business's official policy is not to serve gay people. I agree that it should be the official policy of the business.
In the USA there are some laws against some discrimination, but discrimination still happens unofficially. The law causes most bigots to be a little more careful. (In the USA, there are some who want to be able to openly discriminate based on their "religious beliefs.") Thus, I can't think of any businesses that I would be able to tag in that way.
I find tagging this more compelling than the pricing discrimination. I could see how it could be used as a competitive tactic to drive people away from a particular business.
Different Prices for Different Groups
The example given was for regarding policies that price services differently based on what group they belong to.
Conceptually, I do find discriminatory pricing troubling.
There are times when there is some logic to "discriminatory" pricing. Where I live, libraries will charge a nominal fee for a library card when it is from a local tax payer versus someone living elsewhere. Since, local taxes directly support the library. I could see the national park be the same kind argument regarding support from local taxes and it being a public good for those living there.
Possibly this could be captured in fee:discrimination=*