[RFC] Tagging proposal for grab rails in wheelchair accessible toilets

General talk Tagging general discussion
,
21

It’s a synonym by linking and wording of the Wiki lede “Similar items not covered in this article include bathroom handrails—which help to prevent falls on slippery, wet floors—other grab bars, used, for instance,” Handrail - Wikipedia
Currently it’s described as “rails designed to be grasped by the hand so as to provide stability” without being limited to movement. The use doesn’t need to be confined to Key:handrail - OpenStreetMap Wiki
This is not merely a “perceived convenience”. You still have to ask applications to add grab_rail= , and also translate it with descriptions to different languages.
handrail= is not the only issue. grab_rail=toilet_armrest overlaps with armrest= existing. If it’s well-equipped with everything, they will all be mixed into one grab_rail:right=horizontal_wall_mounted;vertical_wall_mounted;toilet_armrest to as far as grab_rail:right=horizontal_wall_mounted;vertical_wall_mounted;toilet_armrest + grab_rail:left=toilet_armrest, very long and disorganized.

22

We’ve done the research, and grab rail is indeed the British English. As OSM officially prefers British English, we chose that one. We will make sure that the wiki page mentions grab bar as well, so that American users will find it too. (I’ve also updated this in the proposal).

1 Like
23

I’m rereading the proposal and the feedback of @Kovoschiz

It’s right that the <left/right>-part should be moved earlier in the key, thus from toilets:wheelchair:grab_rail:left=* to toilets:wheelchair:left:grab_rail. This however also invites to always use the toilets:wheelchair prefix.

However, if there is only one toilet, which is not designated to wheelchairs but has those features, I’m still in dubio wether to use grab_rail:<left|right>=* or toilets:<left|right>:grab_rail

I’m thinking about moving the “armrests” out of this proposal, and reuse the “Key:armrest” for this - with an explicit <left/right/both>, e.g toilets:wheelchair:left:armrest=yes|no.

24

Well, no, it’s not a synonym; if it was synonymous there wouldn’t be two entirely separate Wikipedia articles about these two different things, now would there? (Not that I would use Wikipedia for a reliable source about anything anyway… but I digress.)

You also need to use a nomenclature that people writing and using these applications would use, and when it comes to the rails used by disabled users of toilets and their related facilities, in English they are called a grab rail or grab bar. The difference may be seem slight, and distinguishing a grab_rail from a handrail in this manner may seem superfluous to you, but they’re two similar yet entirely separate things in English and you’re never not going to get a lot of pushback from native anglophones on calling them “handrails”.

Essentially your point boils down to “handrail seems close enough to describe any rail that people lay hands on, so let’s not add another tag that seems superfluous and unnecessary and let’s just extend the meaning of handrail to include this use case.” Which, to me, seems to be an argument almost entirely based on the idea of that being more convenient an OSM tagging scheme, saving the ‘trouble’ of documenting a similar-but-not-quite-the-same thing just for disabled toilets.

All this to say: I “get it”, but you’re not going to make this more easily understood or usable by app developers/users. You’re just going to annoy them with a weird use of handrail when you mean grab_rail.

25

Was referring to “bathroom handrail”. I’m not contending that there’s no “grab rail”, but they could be considered a subset of rails for holding onto.
If grab_rail= is significant and unique enough, that’s fine. But then there’s still armrest= instead of =toilet_armrest to consider .

26

I did split of the armrests-part into Proposal:Armrests on toilets - OpenStreetMap Wiki

27

@APneunzehn74 There are a few interesting ones that would be useful:

  1. The picture of the sink with grab rails, there aren’t pictures of that yet. Might be useful for a future proposal
  2. The picture showing both the sitting toilet and the urinal is interesting as well. Would it count as a urinal with a grab rail? (Even though I’m not dealing with urinals right now)

Please, upload them to commons and link them on the dedicated wheelchair-accessible-toilet wikipage

28

Yes, please! These examples in Wikimedia Commons would greatly enhance this (or these, as there are now 2) proposal(s)!

@Pieter_Vander_Vennet I admire your dedication to enhancing wheelchair accessibility! It is a noble goal that I think can really help people. After going through the wiki pages and reading through this thread I have some thoughts:

  1. Your grab rail proposal seems to make things very detailed but I fear this is less useful than may be intended and may cause some surveyors to simply keep putting wheelchair=yes on the amenity=toilets area or node. If the goal is to document grab rails, let’s do that. It can be used by more than just wheelchair-bound people so the toilets:wheelchair:* prefix can simply be toilets:grab_rail=yes|left|right|both and can be used in both toilets:position=seated and toilets:position=urinal elements. If we have a documented use case to justify specifying shape, then we can discuss, but otherwise, they all serve the same purpose. I would also recommend adding material=* and height=* to suggested tagging for grab rails when the time comes.
  2. Similarly, your armrests proposal is a duplication of an already existing tag, armrest=*. The only real addition would be going from armrest=yes|no to armrest=yes|left|right|both which I would support in both the amenity=bench and the amenity=toilets context. Though I am not sure this needs a full formal proposal, simply discuss on the armrest wiki page and after some time for comment, add the information. In the context of toilets, support=toilets and material=* along with armrest=yes|left|right|both would accurately portray what you are after.

Finally, some thoughts on the wheelchair accessible toilets page under “accessibility specific tagging” it states:

There are (attempts) to have specific tags giving detailed information, such as:

The above tags were introduced by [@Robin_On_Wheels] OnWheels VZW, but have never been voted or approved and lack a proper definition.

  • toilets:wheelchair:grab_rails=* - See above, I propose toilets:grab_rail=yes|left|right|both instead.
  • toilets:wheelchair:door_width=* - door=* + width=* covers this already.
  • toilets:wheelchair:space_front=* and toilets:wheelchair:space_side=* - I am not sure this information belongs in OSM. It is describing a measurement of an element not mapped. Further, this would lead to inaccuracies or inconsistencies that may lead to distrust of other wheelchair tagging. For instance, if a waste bin is placed in front of the toilet, should a mapper measure from the base of the toilet to the waste bin (as would be the space available for a wheelchair) or should they measure to the wall (less useful for a wheelchair user but verifiable and consistent?) If this information is valuable, I am sure you can make a rough estimate with OSM measurement tooling on a known way side. That type of approximation is likely better for the data consumer to do than the OSM contributor.

Some items currently don’t have any tagging:

  • The presence of an SOS-button
  • The height of the toilet (distance between the floor and the seat)
  • The presence of a hoist lift
  • The presence of an adult changing table, eventually with a wide paper roll
  • The floor material (maybe reuse surface?)
  • A privacy screen
  • A back rest on the toilet seat
  • Information on the wash basin, e.g. height adjustable, type of the faucet,
  • The presence of a waste basket
  • The presence of a mirror in the stall (important for ostomy users)
  • The presence of a (handheld) bidet (aka shattaf/health faucet)
  • Does the door have a grab bar on the inside, around 1m above ground? This helps wheelchair users to close the door behind them
  • emergency=phone + button_operated=yes.
  • height=*.
  • Not sure what this is so unsure if we would have a tag for it.
  • changing_table=* + changing_table:for=adults.
  • surface=*.
  • Agreed a partition=* or similar tag should exist for this context as well as places like conference centers that can partition off a larger area for smaller meeting/presentation/event space.
  • backrest=yes + backrest:material=*.
  • handwashing:*=*
  • amenity=waste_basket (seperately tagged).
  • I think we can ATYL mirror=yes, mirror:height=*, mirror:capacity=*, etc. but it is not currently in use. Would apply to either it’s own node or as a part of the overall indoor=room.
  • Not familiar with bidets so I will let that debate go to someone else.
  • door:grab_rail=yes + door:grab_rail:height=*.

Hope this helps! Would be happy to talk about any of this as we expand accessibility in OpenStreetMap!

29

I have added the corresponding pictures,

  1. I doubt the grab rail to the urinal; in my estimation, it’s in that position by
    chance. It’s a unisex restroom.
30

Hi,

Sorry, but your post isn’t helping.

  1. The point is exactly to document grab rails, the prefix toilets:wheelchair:grab_rails is to indicate that the grab rails only exist in the stall that is designated to wheelchair users. And yes, many people will still just slap a “wheelchair=yes” on the toilets - that is fine.

  2. Yes, I’m aware of the armrests key. This is a formal proposal to also use armrests on toilets, whereas it is formerly only used on benches.

  3. I also see you discovered my wishlist of tagging and some earlier attempts made by others. I’m explicitly not engaging into this discussion here. This forum thread is about grab rails, not about every other possible feature an accessible toilet might have. Second, discussing those all at once is too much (the grab rails alone took >12hr of my attention); so I’m slicing this elephant and might come up with another proposal about one of those once this is done. If you want to help, pick one topic, do research about what is out there, document that, try to find CC-pictures, try to come up with a consistent tagging scheme, create a proposal page, communicate with the community and get it voted.

31

Being dismissive of significant feedback directly relating to your proposals is not in the spirit of collaboration or consensus. I imagine I am not the only one with the thoughts I’ve shared which if left unaddressed will result in opposition.

32

(Edit: for everyone interested in the grab rails proposal: skip this post. It contains nothing interesting, except me ranting)

@GA_Kevin : sorry. For context: I have been sick in the past three days, so I’m still tired and have little (social) energy. I was dismissive of your comment because it felt like a lot of fluff and like rehashing a lot of already discussed topics; which I don’t feel like dealing with. In short, I feel like your comment is wasting my time and has nearly nothing of value and is even derailing the discussion. Let me explain why in detail.

Your grab rail proposal seems to make things very detailed

That is indeed the point - see the wheelchair accessible toilets wikipage for why this detail is needed for actual wheelchair users

but I fear this is less useful than may be intended and may cause some surveyors to simply keep putting wheelchair=yes on the amenity=toilets area or node.

If other contributors do that, let them. I’m however inviting the toolmakers to build better tools.

If the goal is to document grab rails, let’s do that.

Yes, that is indeed the goal. You’ve already wasted two paragraphs at this point.

It [the wheelchair toilet] can be used by more than just wheelchair-bound people

Correct! Which is why wheelchair accessible toilets wikipage only assumes that such a designated toilet exists.

so the toilets:wheelchair:* prefix can simply be toilets:grab_rail=yes|left|right|both

NO! This is incorrect. Here, you completely ignore the distinction between using and not using the prefix: the prefix indicates that the grab rail is in the wheelchair-dedicated stall! This is clearly stated in the proposal.

and can be used in both toilets:position=seated and toilets:position=urinal elements.

You are again ignoring the previous discussion! The edge cases we are stumbling over are if there are both of them.

If we have a documented use case to justify specifying shape, then we can discuss, but otherwise, they all serve the same purpose.

What is your point here? Simplifying the proposal to drop “horizontal” and “vertical”? Some wheelchair users might prefer one over the other? Is that enough?

I would also recommend adding material=* and height=* to suggested tagging for grab rails when the time comes.

First good remarks, but not very fleshed out. What is “height”? Height between the floor and the grab rail? Or, in case of a vertical grab rail, the length of it? Or is it height between the floor and the uppermost side of the vertical grab rail? You need to be more precise here

Similarly, your armrests proposal is a duplication of an already existing tag

The first sentence in the proposal is literally “In this proposal, we’d like to extend the ‘armrest’ tagging to also include toilets”. Yes, I’m aware that armrests already exists and no, I do not want to duplicate it.

The only real addition would be going from armrest=yes|no to armrest=yes|left|right|both

No, the real addition is to use it on toilets as well, whereas it is only used on benches now.

Though I am not sure this needs a full formal proposal, simply discuss on the armrest wiki page and after some time for comment, add the information.

Nothing really needs a proposal. Please read the proposal process wiki page

In the context of toilets, support=toilets and material=*

Should I add support=toilets on a toilet node? How would that work? Does the toilet support itself then?

along with armrest=yes|left|right|both would accurately portray what you are after.

No, this loses the “foldable/fixed”-differences.

So, yes, I’m dismissive of your comment because it feels like you didn’t properly read the linked pages or did proper research.

I’m not gonna discuss the other half of your post in detail, except to note that it derails the conversation away from the grab rails. Basic discussion hygiëne asks that you keep one topic per thread and/or that you discuss things in the appropriate places - what you are not doing here. Again, start a new forum thread or discuss this on the wheelchair-accessible-toilets wiki page under the discussion tab; where I’ll gladly join.

And I assume you made a well-intentioned attempt to come up with some tagging for some of the items, but, there are simply many inaccuraccies here. For example, take:

emergency=phone + button_operated=yes.

First of all, this is unfit for the tagging scheme if we want to add this into one node. Second, many SOS-buttons simply send a signal and someone comes to check on you; no actual microphone or speaker is present, so it is not a phone service.

Not sure what this is so unsure if we would have a tag for it

FFS, a internet search takes 3 seconds.

When I read the above two lines, I can only assume that you don’t know much about those subjects and tagging (which can be forgiven), but that you also didn’t take the effort to lookup what they mean. This makes it feel like you wasted my time and this erodes all my confidence in your post, which is why I’m being dismissive. And yes, I’m a bit angry as well.

33

Assume good faith discussion is a good guideline. Also, not responding in anger but to address and try to take feedback to build consensus.

I’ll respond to the rest when I get to my computer but this kind of reaction to what was significant feedback after a significant amount of time for me is not an effective way to build support or consensus.

34

I propose that we don’t litter this thread with discussion about how this discussion should be organized, so:

  • if you have feedback on the proposal, feel free to post it in this thread
  • if you have feedback about my writing style, my emotions, … , you can send this to me in PM
35

I don’t believe this to be the case. One clear example is here in the United States, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act which would make a single stall restroom wheelchair accessible. These are not designated for wheelchair-only patrons, these are for everyone but also feature things like grab rails for those who need it.

I disagree this needs a formal proposal but I suppose that can’t hurt, it’s just a large hurdle for a relatively uncontroversial expansion. If we are going to formalize armrests, we should take a serious look at the no value. We dont tend to tag things that arent there, we tag things that are. Unsuprisingly, it makes it that no is 70%+ of values on TagInfo. We should also not just add toilets, it should be generic. Toilets and benches can be an example but we should aim to avoid needing a whole review process again before adding something new that has an armrest. Tags should be permissive, not restrictive.

That’s your choice, I was simply trying to be helpful on solutions already available on OSM.

Please see feedback above on designated stalls and the ADA.

Why not capture all subkeys of toilets? A subset makes no sense. A grab rail is supported by the wall, armrests by the toilets, both can be tagged. By those with or without disabilities.

Yes, I would like to drop the shape. We will never be able to capture all available shapes, very similar to bike racks. I fail to see where some data consumer would find grab rail is on the right useless, but if we add its L-shaped, suddenly valuable. Maybe you can provide some examples from data consumers or advocacy groups that this would be useful?

Height will need to be determined by the mapper, we do have min_height and max_height but I imagine that would be confusing and not be embraced to micromap a rail to that degree. An estimated overall height value from the mapper should suffice.

Please see above on generic tagging changes.

Ive made proposals myself, im aware of the process, but not every new tag needs a proposal. I don’t think this rises to that level but if you do, be my guest. Im just trying to save you some effort and potential challenges to a good idea.

Apologies it should be

amenity=toilets
armrest=both

Support would be for grab rails such as wall supported.

That is by design, similar to shape, Id like to see some actual evidence this is useful information rather than just adding tags to add tags.

At the end of the day, you’re asking for a RFC (Request for Comment) not a Request for Research. This is your proposal and should stand on it’s own without need of a reader to do extra research for context. I gave you some feedback and you are admittedly dismissive and angry about that. You will ultimately ask me to support this proposal I am sure, which has a higher barrier if you refuse feedback or consensus-building. As the proposal process states, you need approx. 3 support votes to overrule an opposition vote.

In general, it’s better to say you don’t know something than become a 5-minute internet expert and speak authoritatively on it.

Appreciate the honesty. Your reaction to genuine feedback makes me feel like I wasted my time as well, but I care more about quality OSM proposals than feelings on forums. So here I am continuing to attempt to engage in constructive feedback, I hope you take it as such.

36

It would seem there is some language lost-in-translation, resulting in overly strong expressions. But your list of ideas is about the wiki page, not directly limited to this specific proposal. They should be discussed in other posts.

37

I’ve opened this for voting: [RFC] Tagging proposal for grab rails in wheelchair accessible toilets