CLOSED [RFC] Feature Proposal - lgbtq:unmarked tag

create a tag to mark that a place has been surveyed with respected to access to the lgbtq community and that there was no posted information on access for this community

wiki link: Proposal:Lgbtq:unmarked tag - OpenStreetMap Wiki

discussion on discord closed

What’s wrong with using the already existing :signed-suffix? e.g. lgbtq:signed=no?

1 Like

what is signed as “no” in your solution? the lgbtq tag could mean only lgbtq people, lgbtq primary, lgbtq welcome, or lgbtq people banned

*:signed is used to indicate whether * is signed or not. So lgbtq:signed=no doesn’t mean the same as lgbtq=no, it means that there’s nothing visible that indicates a lgbtq= value.


I would suggest that a proposal is made for the key itself and goes into detail about the entire scope for a cohesive tagging scheme. Making a proposal for just one tag is not productive. If it’s a tag in use already, just add it to the wiki. No proposal is required.

What is the benefit of adding this tag to any public building or POI as the proposal suggests? I’d imagine unmarked is the default and should be treated this way. We don’t usually tag default values. If we make a habit out of that, every single simple POI is going to have a hundred tags.

1 Like

I think there is a balance to be struck. As described in the original post, default values can be useful as a “checklist” to keep track of what’s been surveyed and what hasn’t. I would imagine once a project is finished (whole area has been surveyed, etc.) the tags could be removed fairly easily. But on the other hand, I agree with you that it’d be wasteful and cumbersome to have a hundred tags describing the lack of some feature.

There’s no clear line on what really defines a default tag, either. Example: How redundant would you consider the following tags?

  • start_date on every feature
  • cycleway=no (on roads)
  • access=yes
  • oneway=no

There’s lots of room for interpretation here, so I think all we can do is be reasonable and evaluate things on a case-by-case basis with common sense. That and argue about it here. :slight_smile: