toilets:private_stalls= : Let’s use specific measurements eg toilets:stalls:enclosed= directly, not vague judgements as a “private” feeling
=partially : I don’t get your definition. It looks to be whether the stalls are partially enclosed to me.
=yes : As you used =partially , I would think this is an unspecific positive more, ie “some” vs all stalls
Full-height enclosure isn’t the sole possibility. Stalls can have a short “slot” for liquids (and air?) only, only revealing shoe bottoms very close. They can be gapped, or enclosed, at the top or bottom only.
The format does get complicated if you need to consider the number of stalls with this extent of enclosure. Hopefully there isn’t a mix of them?
I mentioned toilets:stalls:*= , as it could be eg toilets:stalls:count= for the number of all of them. toilets:num_chamber= is imported, and awkwardly named. There may be unenclosed WC. Urinals aren’t “chamber”. Recently I remembered there are family stalls with 2 WC inside, one of them child-sized. How to combine prefixes and suffixes to describe the size of a toilet
The original idea behind the proposal idea was to seperate toilets by how enclosed they are, which also means the key (toilets:stalls:enclosed=) does sound very good for that purpose.
My thoughts were on three possible values:
not enclosed - either no door or no sidewall >>no
either with a gap at the top/bottom or both >> gap (this is assumed as standard if not tagged)
completely enclosed from top to bottom, without any gaps >> full_height
Transgender people, People with bladder-disfunction and people with social anxiety could benefit from the info if stalls that are completely enclosed, as many of them prefer these fully enclosed stalls. They could then easily look it up if there is one nearby.
A friend of mine originally came up with this idea.
The three values no/gap/full_height is not enough. In western Europe the most common design for multi-stall toilets is a gap of 10-15cm on the bottom, walls of at least 2 meters and no gaps in the walls or doors. If I look at some pictures of toilets e.g. in America with centimeter-wide full-height gaps one can easily look through, this is something completely different but would both qualify for “gap”.
Also, I wouldn’t use the term “stall” here, as this is not used at all in OSM up to now. We do have the term ‘chambers’ in ‘num_chambers’. (This is in use and not only from imports - although in general I would prefer the subkey ‘count’ instead.)
Is body parts the most reference-neutral wording?
This would be exactly *stall:gap:bottom= which isn’t suitable for *stall:gap:top= , but could be acceptable as a shortcut. If they are different, it would need to be separated.
toilets:stall:gap:top= / stall:gap:top= : Imagine one stands to touch the ceiling