Is name=Toilet even theorethically valid for amenity=toilets?

Is it possible that any amenity=toilets worldwide can have valid name=Toilet?

Or that any leisure=playground should be tagged with name=Playground?

Or is it safe to assume that it is definitely description incorrectly put into name tag?

1 Like

Hm… If there is a sign on the door saying Toilet, I think it qualifies as the name!
I’ve just had a stay in a hotel where every room had a name on a name plate, and indeed the toilet door in the hallway had a similarly styled name plate “Toilet”.


really? That idea is really surprising to me, I would treat it as description/label, not treating such toilet as named one.


The name tag is explicitly not for “descriptive” purposes. So reflecting the tag/type of element into the name tag is most likely name tag abuse and redundant.

I typically change stuff like this to be in “description” which is a lot more appropriate as name.



Problematic it becomes when many tobacconists here are just simply light signed with a nation uniform T like black field, white T and the name on the façade of Tabaccheria, more often though just Tabacchi. The operator with effort can be found out but what to fill in when prompted for a name of the shop? Otherwise anything of a ‘name’ that tells what it is rather than being area unique and people knowing 3 blocks away which one you’re talking about better is de-named.

We also have loads of street names and path names which are descriptive. E.g. many church paths are named “Kerkepad”, which is Dutch for church path. These paths were, and sometimes are still, used to go through the fields to the church. “Zuidelijke parallelweg” for the accompanying road at the south side of a motorway. “Jaagpad” for a tow path. “Eikenlaan” for a road lined by oaks. Descriptive, turned into names.

(I worry a lot more about route relation names, I feel that more can be accomplished there. )

You could turn it into a worldwide MR challenge?

there is difference between “name based on some characteristics”

in case of road I have seen and removed cases (after verification) like

name=My favourite trail for dog walking
name=Unnamed service road
name=2m wide cycleway
name=Yellow trail goes here

1 Like

I think the point is that it’ll actually need on-the-ground (or photo) validation - an automatic edit or even a MapRoulette task wouldn’t work. There are lots of them - here’s another (just) in the Netherlands (which looked fairly silly when I was there a while back, when there was no visible border), and nearer to home for me, here.

Not everything on a sign is a name. Many signs are descriptive, rather than displays of names. I think “Toilet” counts as such. No one would ever say: “I was at Toilet.” No, people say: “I was at the toilet.” Toilet is a noun, not a name.

So name=Toilet on amenity=toilets is pollution of the map and should be removed.

I thought that would be a simple thing to edit, but the Germans got me blocked for fixing that: Automatisierter/Mechanischer Edit... Bolzplatz: name->description. Some of them have difficulties with distinguishing names and nouns.


I wonder if there could a be some room for a middle ground tag between description and name for generic signs like these. description could be a whole sentence (example from the wiki - This is where the first colonial settlement fleet to Australia landed in 1741), but generic signs for a business or amenity like “Tabaccheria” or “Playground” are generally just a few words at most. Perhaps a different tag like generic_label or generic_sign might be more appropriate for this sort of thing than either name or description.

Ahem - you might want to rethink exactly how you’re saying what you’re trying to say :grinning:
For completeness, the relevant user block is here.

In Nederland, all street names get the article. You say “Ik liep op het Kerkepad” (I was walking on the Church path".

I used inscription in similar cases

What if it has sign “entry 1 euro” ? Is it name=entry 1 euro ?

Remember the hotel. If the guest rooms have names on name signs, and the toilet has “Toilet” on it in the same style on exactly such a sign (been there, seen that), you could argue that that is the name of that room. I’m pretty sure “entry 1 euro” would not be on such a name plate. Moving that to a description tag wouldn’t be right anyway, I think.


That’s because these descriptive names have been formalised into actual names. This is super common for (European) streets. I doubt this practice applies to toilets and playgrounds, though.

Well it seems to be now, to flush or not to flush, that’s the question, for what’s in the name.

1 Like

Even if you remove the “Toilet” or “Playground” as being a description added in the name tag, what would be the value for “name” then? Many of those places don’t have a designated name or not a sign at all denoting such.

it is perfectly fine to have no name tag, for example many natural=tree or barrier=bollard or leisure=playground have no name and no name tag


Now I expect someone to suggest noname=yes for toilets… :slight_smile: