Talk:Tag:amenity=lavoir

In Finland, it´s traditional that there are open-air places that are built to be used for washing rugs. Is it okay to tag them as lavoirs? --Paavobave (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Current tagging does not make it clear if the lavoir is historic only, or currently in use

While the tag access=yes/no is helpful to show if the lavoir is open to the public, it is still possible that access=yes refers to a wash-house which is historic only. How should this be specified? We could ask mappers to add disused=yes but it seems that in Europe this would need to be added to the majority of mapped features. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about the difficulty to show what is exactly this amenity=*. But some lavoir=*s are in excellent condition with a clean water supply. They could really be used for laundry today! But it is sure that they are not in use and that they are perfect examples of well preserved historic buildings. I think that amenity=lavoir and historic=yes are sufficient. --User:Foxandpotatoes 01:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The tag historic=yes is not clearly defined, but I would understand that a node with amenity=lavoir + historic=yes is an old lavoir which is of historic interest. This does not, however, make it clear if the lavoir is still functional or not. That is why disused=yes or disused:amenity=lavoir might be better. --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There were enough use cases of historic=lavoir to prompt me to write a wiki page for that (historic=lavoir). I don't see how a disused amenity (no water, covered by grates, merely tourist attraction) should be mapped as an amenity; it gives the wrong impression to a map user who is looking to wash their clothes. I would therefore suggest retagging of the historic ones and replacing amenity=lavoir with historic=lavoir.B-unicycling (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)