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

In English, there’s a very large gray area between formal and attributive names (what we tend to call “descriptive names” in OSM). Some kinds of features are routinely named systematically, such as railway stations and buildings. In general, I draw the line at a name that duplicates the local language’s predominant term for the feature type, but I’ve been defining “feature type” based on intuition to some extent:

  • building=yes name=Building :no_good_man:
  • amenity=parking name=Parking Lot :no_good_man:
  • amenity=parking access=customers name=Customer Parking Lot :ok_man: (because a lot is only called this if there’s a corresponding non-customer parking lot)

In other words, how confident am I that a geocoder would come up with a reasonable label for the feature given its tags? (Not that any geocoder tries very hard to do so at the moment.)

In the U.S., we normally wouldn’t call amenity=toilet a “toilet”, but we make an exception for “public toilets”. This public toilet has a less prominently signposted name based on the park it’s in, but if that name weren’t signposted at all, I wouldn’t have added a name tag just because it says “Toilet” on it:

POIs can be inconsistent because of the public’s expectations about what they’re called. Based on common usage, I normally include a place name in the name of a community anchor institution, such as “Springfield Post Office” and “Springfield City Hall”, even if the sign only says “Post Office” or “City Hall”, because these POIs are so strongly associated with a place. On the other hand, I often tag a name on a convenience store or car wash that matches the gas station it’s attached to, without any additional qualifiers, knowing that people will correctly interpret a Nominatim result for “Car Wash Hy-Vee Gas” or a map icon for “:shower: Hy-Vee Gas” as a car wash, not a gas station.

We have to be careful because sometimes the big sign is just an advertisement for the services or products offered, not the name of the business per se. For example, this gas station has a big “Gas Gas Gas” sign visible from the highway, but its name is actually “Marathon”, based on the brand name. This restaurant has a descriptive sign, but naming it after the hotel it’s attached to is more helpful to users. Many strip malls in suburban America have signs for “Chinese Restaurant” and “Hair & Nails” that are nearly identical to the signs for “Starbucks Coffee” and “The UPS Store”, but if you patronize one of these shops, you can get a receipt that says the real name on it. And sometimes the name really is generic or we just don’t know, so we cope with the information we do have.

It was only in the 1980s or so that American newspapers standardized on always writing the road type suffix as part of the road’s proper name in prose, e.g., “Loveland–Madeira Road” rather than “Loveland–Madeira road” for a road that connects Loveland to Madeira. Even before then, a “River road” would’ve at least had “River” as its proper name, because there are plenty of roads along rivers that don’t have that name.

(Indeed, in some other languages, the road type is still treated as an optional qualifier rather than part of the road name proper. This has been a source of some apparent disagreement between HOT and Kaart in Vietnamese, mucking up turn-by-turn guidance instructions depending on whether the routing engine includes or excludes the road type in its own sentence structures.)

3 Likes

for road names? definitely manual review with knowledge of naming in a given area, often also on the ground survey is needed.

But leisure=playground name=Playground with no further tags (or leisure=playground name=Plac zabaw) seem entirely safe to me to edit remotely.

Or amenity=drinking_water name=Drinking water

Or waterway=waterfall name=waterfall

Or leisure=firepit name=firepit

6 Likes

+1 and the same applies to

amenity=toilets with name= toilet or Toilet or toilets or Toilets or public toilet, Public Toilet, Public toilet, public toilets, Public toilets, Public Toilets etc. etc. …

3 Likes

To be clear, I agree where it comes to toilet names… but even for toilets I could think of an edge case, so I think some kind of organized check (before or after) is IMO always necessary. I think all changes should be seen by a mapper, either before the automated edit, or afterwards (by leaving a signal tag that you can buils e.g. a MapRoulette challenge on, or an overpass-turbo query for yourself or a small team).

if tagging is name=Toilets amenity=toilets how potential edge cases can be even remotely found? Can one even exist?

I can imagine name=Toilets amenity=toilets shop=bathroom_furnishing with someone running combined public toilet and shop selling toilets and so on. Or weird tagging of restaurant with weird name that allows people not being clients to use their toilets.

But if no other tags are present? (or only toilet-typical ones are present) Can you imagine even theoretical edge case?

How many cases are we talking about?

1 Like

I think amenity=X name=X is clearly poor/incorrect tagging and most of us would delete the name=X with much thought if we were tidying an area.

I’m sure you could create edge cases by mixing top-level tags, but I can’t see that anybody would mix, say, amenity=X, shop=Y since the rendering would conflict.

1 Like

Are you also planning to perform this mechanical edit on other feature types besides amenity=toilets and leisure=playground? These two feature types are somewhat less likely to have names, but the names on other built and natural features may be more significant, especially in a historically multilingual region. I think it would be worth scrutinizing features such as this “Parque” park (which turned out to be a building), but I’m unsure if these cases would be more common than the cases where a feature was named generically in a different language just to sound more exotic, such as this “Callejón” (Spanish for highway=unclassified) in a region where Spanish is spoken but not predominantly.

1 Like
  • military = bunker name matches one of [‘bunker’] x238 cases
  • waterway = waterfall name matches one of [‘waterfall’, ‘wodospad’] x101 cases
  • natural = spring name matches one of [‘źródło’, ‘spring’] x16 cases
  • leisure = playground name matches one of [‘playground’, ‘plac zabaw’, ‘spielplatz’] x137 cases
  • tourism = camp_site name matches one of [‘camp site’, ‘campsite’, ‘pole namiotowe’] x61 cases
  • man_made = cairn name matches one of [‘cairn’] x48 cases
  • amenity = drinking_water name matches one of [‘drinking water’, ‘water refill station’, ‘woda pitna’] x205 cases
  • tourism = viewpoint name matches one of [‘viewpoint’, ‘punkt widokowy’] x293 cases
  • landuse = allotments name matches one of [‘ogródki działkowe’, ‘allotments’] x69 cases
  • tourism = picnic_site name matches one of [‘picnic site’, ‘picknickplatz’] x47 cases
  • amenity = toilets name matches one of [‘toilets’, ‘toilet’, ‘WC’, ‘toalety’, ‘toaleta’] x822 cases
  • amenity = bench name matches one of [‘bench’, ‘ławka’] x656 cases

Following would benefit human review as map data is often very significantly broken in such areas, or I have not reviewed enough cases to be sure that change would be always good:

  • amenity = place_of_worship without religion tag, name matches one of [‘mosque’, ‘meczet’, ‘mezquita’, ‘mosquée’] - many cases
  • building = house name matches one of [‘residential building’] x91 cases
  • building = house name matches one of [‘residential’] x60 cases
  • building = house name matches one of [‘residencial’] x90 cases
  • building = residential name matches one of [‘residencial’] x36 cases
  • service = drive-through name matches one of [‘drive thru’, ‘Drive-Thru’, ‘Drive-thru’] x39 cases
  • landuse = farmland name matches one of [‘farmland’, ‘farm land’, ‘pole’, ‘pole uprawne’] x198 cases

Note that name=WATERFALL name=Waterfall name=waterfall are all matched when name=waterfall is listed above.

Considering to propose one, this thread is done to check what is the opinion without spending time on documenting it. Also, to check whether remote edits like say removing name=Spring from springs in Nepal/USA/Poland are considered as safe.

Still, I would skip them in bot edit. I prefer to avoid any avoidable risk in bot edits and you have some truly weird taggings.

A specific name of “water refill station” could indicate a bottle or jug refill station, as opposed to a drinking fountain, which might be a user’s assumption in an urban context. I’d suggest examining these cases more closely or turning them into a MapRoulette challenge, since there’s a detailed tagging scheme for drinking water.

This is another one to be careful about. Mappers have often conflated vista points with their subjects, dual-tagging tourism=viewpoint with e.g. waterway=waterfall. The name=Waterfall on this node could help to decide whether the node physically represents the vista point or waterfall.

1 Like

We often have highway signs posted to say “Scenic Lookout ahead”. They usually don’t have an actual name, it’s just a spot to stop the car & look at the nice view.

In English-speaking regions, I would expect that if these were legitimate name values, that they would also be tagged with note explaining the unusual situation. So if there’s a feature tagged with a descriptive name in this way and there’s no note, then I would 100% support a mechanical edit to remove the name.

2 Likes

I just want to add nothing constructive, other than to say that this is perhaps one of my favorite editing disputes of all time. It’s impossible to explain the dispute to anyone that isnt in the in-group of this community. I also love that eventually @Friendly_Ghost and @woodpeck met in person and the world didn’t explode. Over on Discord, we have a running joke over what Casper is going to do to earn the next block level.

The argument:“if there’s a plate or sign than that’s the name” is false imo.
I can put on a plate/sign also descriptions.
In fact colours are worldwide used for signs as descriptions.
Distances in Mi/Km are also descriptions and definitely on signs/plates.
Thus also the type of what I’m referring to isn’t necessarily a “name”

thus if written on a sign in a park the wording “Public Toilet 150m left” doesn’t mean the name of that sign is “Public Toilet 150m left” it still means that sign has no name. It’s just information, that’s it.

Same for a sign on a door for “Male” or “Female” it doesn’t mean that this door has the name “Male” or “Female” nor does it mean that room has the name “Male/Female” it’s just a description.

“Wash hands for 30 seconds” at the Faucet also doesn’t mean the faucet has the name “Wash hands for 30 seconds”

it’s a description.

As such, I deem a description like “Toilet” or “Public Toilet” also a description and not a name.

That’s my 5-cents to this discussion.

7 Likes

We have discussed label= for =route Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations eg https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nadjita/Routes#New_tag_label=*

1 Like

A greater question may be whether building=toilets or indoor=room + room=toilets with name=Toilet is valid. amenity=toilets is often combined with them, thereby causing the possible appearance of amenity=toilets + name=Toilet ?
For this, I’m thinking a toilet stall should generally be indoor=area not =room ? It’s usually a partition, not “room”. Key:room - OpenStreetMap Wiki

Ah, but the question is not "is it a true name? ", but “could it be a true name?”.
For toilets we can be reasonably sure, I guess, but for highways I think not.

The original question is if a description is theoretically a name.

If a description on a sign or plate says: toilet, or male, or female, or left, or right, or 200m, or 100m, or prohibited, or authorized only, etc etc can that theoretically be a name.

In my dictionary a description but also the consensus on OSM a description is not a name.

That’s all I’ll say to it and leave it at that.

Can a string that looks like a description in fact be a name? The general answer to this is Yes. With roads, paths and trails many examples can be found. To me that means I should not perform an automated edit to clean out names that look like a description.
Even with playgrounds: a playground can be named The Playground. It’s not that uncommon to turn a description into a name.

1 Like

I 100% agree with you on that last example. But that’s not being discussed here. You seem to forget the question. Altering the question into new questions and new situations isn’t helpful.

Can “Toilet” as a name be valid.

No it can’t, if someone would give it a name, I would indeed be “The Toilet” and not just “Toilet”

if it’s just on a plate and it’s just “toilet” or "public toilets’ it’s definitely not a name.

I’ve seen thousands of toilets worldwide in the over 60 countries I’ve visited and I never seen anyone writing a description “toilet” on a plate with the purpose of naming the facility as “toilet”

Honestly in all my travels never seen it. I also never seen anyone naming a playground as “playground”

IF - and this I’ve seen sometimes worldwide - people tend to give something a name identical to the feature description it always reads “The xxxxxxx”

I deem “Toilet” or “right” or “left” or “ahead” or “200m” or “10 miles” or “playground” etc not names but descriptions.

but “The Toilet” or “The 10 Miles” or “The Playground” etc sure those could be names… that’s a possibility then.

This is my experience in over 60 countries worldwide I’ve visited.

But then again - exceptions confirm the rule.

3 Likes