From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

By accessibility

Resolved: wheelchair=yes it is and has been for some time --achadwick 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would add wheelchair=yes/no to Extended Usage. Maybe also something to show if a fee is to be paid? --Colin Marquardt 11:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with wheelchair=yes/no and also with fee=yes/no --Stefku 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a proposal open for wheelchair=*: Proposed_features/wheelchair; you probably know already, of course, I'm just linking it here --achadwick 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another topic is accessibility for the blind - often in Germany toilets are good for wheelchair users, and hygenic through touchless water sensors visually impaired persons can't find. That's a typical: blind=limited. --Lulu-Ann 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be proposed somewhere else. It's more widely useful than just a discussion of toilet facilities --achadwick 21:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was approved key:wheelchair=* some time ago. We should update amenity=toilets page. User:MrFrem82 10.44, 26 Agosto 2010 (UTC)

How would you tag the accessibility of a free toilet inside a larger paid area, like a zoo or themepark? For people already in the themepark, it is as it were access=public, while for people outside, it would be access=customers. And inside a themepark, you could still have access=customers, requiring a fee to get into the themepark, then require a purchase at a bar to use the toilets. IIVQ (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Tag access=customers. A person inside a theme park is no different than a person inside a shop. Added fee=yes for if there's an extra fee. Brycenesbitt (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There are schemes that provide keys for locked disabled toilets such as the Euro Key in Germany or the NKS/Radar key in the UK. There is an emerging access=key tag, but it doesn't specify if a toilet uses one of these keys. Should there be something like access=euro_key/nks_key for these toilets? --EvanOdell 11:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

By sex

How should women/men only bathrooms be tagged? This is usefol for when they are physically separated. Xeen

Some suggestions: men=yes/no women=yes/no babys_changing_table=yes/no warm_water=yes/no shower=yes/no --Erde12 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Some of these might be quite useful elsewhere. men=* and women=* sounds like an access tag, showers are generally nice things to have (speaking as a cyclist), and recent mums and dads will surely appreciate baby changing facilities. baby_changing=yes/no for that last one, for brevity? --achadwick 13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Another idea for sex-limited access would be toilets=gents, toilets=ladies, toilets=unisex etc. But that might be conflating form with access. Hmm. --achadwick 13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's not do it that way. Go with the established practice and use male=*, female=* and others, since that is most prevalent in Taginfo. --achadwick 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems annoying to have to set men=no for a women's toilet. What about simply sex=male/female (could also apply to school, in whose Talk page Lulu-Ann suggests gender=male/female). Lorp 14:49, 10 August 2010 (BST)
    • "Gender" is better than "sex" because "sex" is filtered by our spam bots... Lulu-Ann
    • Simply let male=yes on its own imply female=no, unisex=no etc. unless overridden. And let unisex toilets imply access for all. I think that covers it. --achadwick 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Taginfo says that "sex" is more widespread than "gender", or gender-specific version of toilets=*. So let's go with that and write it up fully. Consensus yet? --achadwick 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  • There is quite a bit on the web about 'gender-neutral' toilets, see safe2pee. The current extent of tagging suggestions does not seem to cover this use case. -- SK53 11:55, 29 March 2011 (BST)

Sex or capacity ?

I confuse which one i should use? male=yes/no female=yes/no unisex=yes/no or capacity:women=yes/no/number (and may be similar capacity:man=yes/no/number) ??

By type (squat vs. seated; urinals; flushing mechanism)

A recent visit to Italy revealed quite a number of 'hole in the floor' toilets. I presume its not just wheelchair users who might prefer an alternative if available. Similarly, there is no provision for a urinal/pissoir with no other facilities (perhaps not as common as they used to be). I leave it for others to suggest appropriate tags. -- SK53 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

-- The following types are ideal:




--BDROEGE 10:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

we should also include the flush/sewer type. In Finland you often find Outhouses with no flush/sewer. But this should be a distinct feature and should not be related to your type definition (squat/urinal/flush). Maybe something like sewer=no, flush=no. --Marc 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong -1 to using "type" as the key name. This is horrible tagging anywhere; see below --achadwick 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also missing a tag for latrine (dry toilet, often of wood - --*Martin* 27 October 2010

Could you provide a Wikipedia link please? --achadwick 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is an outhouse what I was looking for ( I often see those in forests and nearby chalets. --*Martin* 17:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with using one key for all of these different ideas. What about facilities with more than one type of stall or stand? Suggest being brave and using the toilet: namespace for saying more about the kind of toilet it is because this sort of meaning really isn't relevant to other types of amenity and I can just see "seated" being a word that can be used to describe some other sort of facility. I propose:

Key Values Description
toilet:squat yes/no Toilet which can be used in the squatting position are available.
toilet:seated yes/no Toilets which can be used in the seated position are available.
toilet:urinals yes/no Urinal stands are available.
toilet:flushing yes/no/user-defined If not "no", all or some of the toilets are fitted with a flushing mechanism. There are several different flushing mechanisms: earth, water, proximity-based, chain; for now we just care about whether mechanisms exist.

Any more? Which works a bit like fuel=*, with the namespacing and the colons. The defaults are all by country or by sex/gender-role, so I'm not noting those. Use the tags if you need to make the distinction where you live. --achadwick 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested also a distinction based on male/female ( this thread) --Sarchittuorg 10:18, 27 May 2012 (BST)

How to tag Porta-johns? Despite being portable, often parks choose to maintain these year around instead of a permanent facility. Brianegge (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


what about hand_washbasin=yes/no to indicate the presence of such? In public urinals they are not necessarily present --Dieterdreist 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Diaper changing table

Is there a tag to indicate that there is a diaper changing table? Such tables are often present near or inside public toilets. --Head 01:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How about adding diaper=yes/no to the toilets-tag? Lulu-Ann

Suggest using the term "changing table" as the basis of this new tag because "diaper" and "nappy" are not 100% understood even within English-speaking countries (the former is US usage, the latter is Commonwealth/GB). Perhaps it should be placed under the toilet: namespace as described above? toilet:changing_table=yes, perhaps. --achadwick 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

According to taginfo, people have been using baby_changing=yes/no (and someone also baby_change=*). Sounds good to me. --gbilotta 11:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(Drinkable) water

Resolved: There is an existing tag. Use that if you can first. --achadwick 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Most toilets have a sink with water (at least in my country). It can be useful to know that for people looking just for some water. What about using something like sink=no/drinkable/undrinkable Arenevier

Not everywhere offers hand-washing, so it may be worth having that. Suggest you use a new tag like toilet:hand_washing=yes/no/minimal for the presence of hand-washing facilities in toilets. Covers the ever-popular bucket and (optional) piece of soap too. --achadwick 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As for drinking water consider using amenity=drinking_water in the first instance on a nearby new Node. If you absolutely positively have to do the two things at once, perhaps then create and document toilet:drinking_water=yes/no. It would seem to be more hygienic tagging to keep things separate ☺ --achadwick 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Outhouse/composting toilets

Please suggest a way to describe whether it is a watercloset type of toilet or some kind not attached to the sewer, like wikipedia:Outhouse. Whether there is water for washing hands is relevant in this context. vibrog 21:17, 20 September 2010 (BST)

See above for hand-washing. For the usage you want, try toilet:outhouse=yes for old-fashioned ones with an external outhouse construction, or toilet:composting=yes for more modern designs. Both probably require something like toilet:flushing=no. --achadwick 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Resolved|operator=* You now have "toilets:disposal=pitlatrine", and "toilets:handwashing=no" if you like. Explore building tags if the difference between wood and concrete construction is important to you. Brycenesbitt (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


If operator=* were added to toilets it might then be possible to determine which are the public (government/council) run facilities and which are others. I think this would be better than adding either public=yes or designation=public which were other things I considered first. Comments? --EdLoach 11:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved: operator=* is now a part of the voted description.Brycenesbitt (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dry Toilet

On 23-May-2015 toilets:disposal=dry toilet was added without discussion. Is this not a type of pit toilet? From a rendering point of view should it not render the same as a pit toilet? Brycenesbitt (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

toilets=yes if amenity=toilets is mapped already

Is it a good idea to use toilets=yes tag if toilet is already tagged as a separate object (like at ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Gender neutral, gender segregated and unisex=yes

Does unisex=yes mean (a) gender neutral (e.g. a unisex toilet), or (b) gender segregated, but there is male & female facilities? In English "unisex" means gender neutral, so some mappers enter unisex=yes for that[1][2][3]. This wiki page is ambiguous, and implies (a). How do you map a gender segregated, non-unisex, toilet which serves male & female? How do you map one a unisex, gender neutral toilet?

talk@ mailing list discussion | OSM Forum discussion | unisex=* wiki talk discussion

Rorym (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


Any objections to adding a note about this to this page? It has 5k uses already and makes sense when the toilets are in a dedicated toilets block/building. Not to be used if toilets inside other building. Aharvey (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Private outhouse

access=private Discouraged.

OK, but mention how to tag a private outhouse next to a private home on private land. Jidanni (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You can map it as a building=toilet or building=toilets (depending if there is one or more stalls), but don't add the amenity=* tag, since it's not of interest to database users, other than that it's a building. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, but using the iD editor, users will create
However this violates "Description A publicly accessible toilet" seen on Tag:amenity=toilets, etc. etc. So maybe someone should file a bug against iD. Thanks. Jidanni (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 

What is exactly being improve here?

Can you explain exactly was improved in ? @Mentor: ? And why mixing in HTML is supposed to be superior? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

First you must explain why you have determined that it is not, and what your standing for asking is? Mentor (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Removing html tags and replacing be wiki markup is preferable. My standing is that I plan to revert it to version without HTML inmix and it was claimed that this version is somehow preferable, so I am asking for info what is wrong with cleaned version Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
HTML removed in Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)