Use of hairdresser= needs to be well-thought. What if I want to use it to indicate haircut only shops first, especially chains viz Japan’s QB House? Already need to invent barber= next? Or else, I hope I don’t have think about the whole set of hair:cut= , hair:wash= , hair:dye= , hair:perm= , beard:cut= , etc, to use hair:cut=only , although I can do that as an exercise.
This is valid. Specialism of hairdressers was discussed in the original topic and I do think it’s something that could be explored.
However, I purposefully steered clear of that for this proposal to keep the scope of it well defined. For now, I am only suggesting we approve barbers, seeing as they are (in many countries) very distinct from hairdresser salons.
On that note, I did originally think of proposing shop=barber but I think the downsides to that (a breaking change in tagging) outweigh any marginal benefits.
I’m late to this discussion, but one additional benefit is that, at least in California, there are different licensing paths to barbers and hair stylists, and they are legally allowed to do different things. For example, a hair stylist can’t shave you with an unprotected blade, but a barber can. In the other direction, stylists can do coloring, but I don’t think barbers can (I could be wrong about that). Correct tagging of these places helps facilitate those uses too.
I know the average person isn’t checking the licensing, but they may be used to going to a barber or hair stylist and getting a certain type of service - that’s not possible to differentiate with current tagging, but would be possible under the RFC.
I would add the point about verifiability to the justification. The tags female and male are only easy to tag and verify when there are signs in the shop window, but in countries where this is uncommon this is hard to verify. Seeing a barber pole or the words “barber” in the shop window is easy to verify.
Also, what tag would you put on a shop=hairdresser to say that you’ve surveyed it and it’s not a barber but a traditional hairdresser? hairdresser=salon? stylist? Why not make that part of the proposal?
That’s the unresolved question of the proposal. There are a few suggestions with “salon” being one. But it’s not clear if that’s a universally recognised term.
Of course, it could also just be left as shop=hairdresser.
Mostly because of the unresolved nature of what to call it. But also because I was interested in tagging barbers, so am proposing a method to do that. Other values for the hairdresser key could come later (either by proposal or naturally).
I started looking into the differences between a barber’s chair and a traditional hairdresser’s chair. There is indeed a difference (typically around durability, and functionality such as headrests, footrests, and arm rests that help when shaving).
Interestingly, lots of sources describe the chairs as “barber chair” versus “salon chair” (or sometimes “stylist chair”).
So I’d be content with barber and salon as semi-colon delimiter options.
I am thinking of someone who is trying to write an Overpass query or a StreetComplete or MapComplete quest to identify all the places that should be surveyed to see if they are actually barbershops or traditional hairdressers/ hair salons. Then it would be useful to have a more specific tag, to be able to distinguish between generic “hairdressers” that have not been surveyed and might actually be barbers, and those that have actually been surveyed and confirmed to be hair salons.