Hi all,
The barbers proposal is now open to voting:
The main objections raised in the RFC were:
-
We don’t have barbers in X location:
It is clear that in some locations, the concept of a barbers does not exist or is not well understood. Whilst I do think we should try to make tags as understandable as possible to mappers, it seems that if the concept of a barbers doesn’t exist in X location, then it simply doesn’t need to be used in that location. -
male=yes is good enough
Although document as access restrictions,male=*is not always used as such and is instead used as a more generic descriptor. However, I still believe explicit tagging is better than relying on gender tags. -
Use a different tagging scheme
Some suggest using a different tagging scheme (e.g.,barbers=yes/no/only). I understand the rationale and I don’t think there is a right or wrong way, however, we should chose one. I’ve kept withhairdresser=barberas this was the majority vote in the original discussion.
One (non-minor) change was made during the RFC:
- Semi-colon delimiter lists
Although not strictly part of the proposal, tagging businesses that are both a hairdresser’s salon and a barbers was raised. The suggestion from the community discussion was to use semi-colon delimiter lists (e.g.,hairdresser=salon; barber). I added this to the tagging section of the proposal.
Many thanks to all who contributed to the discussion!