Add an lgbtq+-related question #2449

New issue

Open

opened 2025-06-23 11:21:42 +00:00 by queerthoughts · 2 comments

queerthoughts commented

2025-06-23 11:21:42 +00:00

Owner

It would be cool to implement the lgbtq+ tagging scheme by adding a question about lgbtq+ friendliness of a place in the relevant themes.

Suggested question: “Does this place welcome members of the lgbtq+ community?”

lgbtq=only: “This place is intended only for members of the lgbtq+ community; others are not supposed to enter.”
lgbtq=primary: “This place is primarily intended for members of the lgbtq+ community, either by design or by overwhelming convention.”
lgbtq=welcome: “This place explicitly welcomes members of the lgbtq+ community. This can for example be indicated by a sticker on the front door, visible pride flag or other recognisable features.”
lgbtq:signed=no: “This place does not indicate their friendliness towards members of the lgbtq+ community.”
lgbtq=no: “This place forbids lgbtq+ people from entering.”

I suggest to add this question to:

amenity=bar
amenity=cafe
amenity=fast_food
amenity=nightclub
amenity=pub
amenity=restaurant
amenity=swingerclub
leisure=fitness_centre
leisure=sports_centre
leisure=swimming_pool (when not part of another feature like a sports centre)

and, albeit less important:

amenity=bench
club=*
education=* and their equivalents in amenity=* (not sure if there's a theme for this)
leisure=hackerspace
shop=*

It would be cool to implement the lgbtq+ tagging scheme by adding a question about lgbtq+ friendliness of a place in the relevant themes. Suggested question: “Does this place welcome members of the lgbtq+ community?” - `lgbtq=only`: “This place is intended only for members of the lgbtq+ community; others are not supposed to enter.” - `lgbtq=primary`: “This place is primarily intended for members of the lgbtq+ community, either by design or by overwhelming convention.” - `lgbtq=welcome`: “This place explicitly welcomes members of the lgbtq+ community. This can for example be indicated by a sticker on the front door, visible pride flag or other recognisable features.” - `lgbtq:signed=no`: “This place does not indicate their friendliness towards members of the lgbtq+ community.” - `lgbtq=no`: “This place forbids lgbtq+ people from entering.” I suggest to add this question to: - `amenity=bar` - `amenity=cafe` - `amenity=fast_food` - `amenity=nightclub` - `amenity=pub` - `amenity=restaurant` - `amenity=swingerclub` - `leisure=fitness_centre` - `leisure=sports_centre` - `leisure=swimming_pool` (when not part of another feature like a sports centre) and, albeit less important: - `amenity=bench` - `club=*` - `education=*` and their equivalents in `amenity=*` (not sure if there's a theme for this) - `leisure=hackerspace` - `shop=*`

pietervdvn commented

2025-07-06 22:33:12 +00:00

Owner

The tagging itself

First of all, the biggest issue with previous LGBT-proposals is that it can be hard to survey and/or verify; but the four options you give are quite doable IMHO. However, how to tag a place that is "neutral" for LGBTQ people? E.g. a pub/fast food joint which has no flags/stickers; but neither has a hate symbol? (Or a place that hates all their visitors equally XD ). I feel that lgbtq=neutral is missing.

Furthermore, do you see the 'lgbtq:signed=yes/no' as a separate question?
And how should lgbtq=no + lgbtq:signed=yes be interpreted? Is this a place that has a sticker "no gays allowed"?

Amenities

This question can be added in the list of questions.json and then be added to shops, pubs, restaurants, sports centres and all other relevant layers.

At last, IMHO, a bench can be painted "rainbow", but that does not make it gay. In our culture, we associate "rainbow" with "LGBT", but that is our interpretation of such a bench.

# The tagging itself First of all, the biggest issue with previous LGBT-proposals is that it can be hard to survey and/or verify; but the four options you give are quite doable IMHO. However, how to tag a place that is "neutral" for LGBTQ people? E.g. a pub/fast food joint which has no flags/stickers; but neither has a hate symbol? (Or a place that hates all their visitors equally XD ). I feel that `lgbtq=neutral` is missing. Furthermore, do you see the 'lgbtq:signed=yes/no' as a separate question? And how should `lgbtq=no` + `lgbtq:signed=yes` be interpreted? Is this a place that has a sticker "no gays allowed"? # Amenities This question can be added in the list of `questions.json` and then be added to shops, pubs, restaurants, sports centres and all other relevant layers. At last, IMHO, a bench can be painted "rainbow", but that does not make it gay. In our culture, we associate "rainbow" with "LGBT", but that is our interpretation of such a bench.

queerthoughts commented

2025-07-10 17:14:23 +00:00

Author

Owner

I agree that the tagging is not perfect, but there's so many such cases in OSM and MapComplete. Some answers to your questions (how I view it):

However, how to tag a place that is "neutral" for LGBTQ people?

I believe the assumption with the current tagging is that unsigned = neutral. This might not always be the case, but IMO it's good enough for an implementation.

Furthermore, do you see the 'lgbtq:signed=yes/no' as a separate question?

Could be a separate question or how I phrased it above. My original post here relied on the assumption that unsigned = neutral. However, adding it as a separate question could improve verifiability, but also raise more questions: if a restaurant clearly states itself as lgbtq+-friendly on their website or social media, but I have not visited it on site, does that count as lgbtq:signed=yes?

Explicit combination of lgbtq=* + lgbtq:signed=no could be used as an indication that the mapper has experience with the location, that there's a general consensus in the area (cf. “overwhelming convention” on the wiki page), but that there's no indication on site.

And how should lgbtq=no + lgbtq:signed=yes be interpreted? Is this a place that has a sticker "no gays allowed"?

Correct, but this should not normally be commonly used in our regions. It could be useful, though, for e.g. religious buildings.

At last, IMHO, a bench can be painted "rainbow", but that does not make it gay. In our culture, we associate "rainbow" with "LGBT", but that is our interpretation of such a bench.

This is a good point. colour=rainbow could be used instead. I have personally tagged one bench with lgbtq=*, knowing that it reads “love is unique” and was designed by members of the local lgbtq+ community.

Conclusion on tagging: if implementing as a separate question, I would add an option in the question for lgbtq=* for a neutral/unsigned place, that only implies lgbtq:signed=no. I wouldn't personally invent a new lgbtq=* value (though I won't stop you from doing so 😉). If implementing as one single question, I'd rely on the assumption that unsigned = neutral. But, although I didn't think of it at first, an approach with two questions would provide more detail. In such case, lgbtq:signed=* should be asked about first, but whether it should always be followed by lgbtq=* or only in the case of lgbtq:signed=yes is up for debate.

I agree that the tagging is not perfect, but there's so many such cases in OSM and MapComplete. Some answers to your questions (how I view it): > However, how to tag a place that is "neutral" for LGBTQ people? I believe the assumption with the current tagging is that unsigned = neutral. This might not always be the case, but IMO it's good enough for an implementation. > Furthermore, do you see the 'lgbtq:signed=yes/no' as a separate question? Could be a separate question or how I phrased it above. My original post here relied on the assumption that unsigned = neutral. However, adding it as a separate question could improve verifiability, but also raise more questions: if a restaurant clearly states itself as lgbtq+-friendly on their website or social media, but I have not visited it on site, does that count as `lgbtq:signed=yes`? Explicit combination of `lgbtq=*` + `lgbtq:signed=no` could be used as an indication that the mapper has experience with the location, that there's a general consensus in the area (cf. “overwhelming convention” on the wiki page), but that there's no indication on site. > And how should lgbtq=no + lgbtq:signed=yes be interpreted? Is this a place that has a sticker "no gays allowed"? Correct, but this should not normally be commonly used in our regions. It could be useful, though, for e.g. religious buildings. > At last, IMHO, a bench can be painted "rainbow", but that does not make it gay. In our culture, we associate "rainbow" with "LGBT", but that is our interpretation of such a bench. This is a good point. `colour=rainbow` could be used instead. I have personally tagged one bench with `lgbtq=*`, knowing that it reads “love is unique” and was designed by members of the local lgbtq+ community. Conclusion on tagging: if implementing as a separate question, I would add an option in the question for `lgbtq=*` for a neutral/unsigned place, that only implies `lgbtq:signed=no`. I wouldn't personally invent a new `lgbtq=*` value (though I won't stop you from doing so 😉). If implementing as one single question, I'd rely on the assumption that unsigned = neutral. But, although I didn't think of it at first, an approach with two questions would provide more detail. In such case, `lgbtq:signed=*` should be asked about first, but whether it should always be followed by `lgbtq=*` or only in the case of `lgbtq:signed=yes` is up for debate.