Proposal talk:Barbers

barber=* is the better alternative

In my opinion, your suggestion of barber=(yes/no/only) is the better option for tagging barbershops due to the following reasons:

• How to tag a hairdresser that also does barbering but not as main service? Is shop=hairdresser+hairdresser=barber correct? I'm not so shure...
• How to tag a barber that also does hairdressing but not as main service? Is shop=hairdresser+hairdresser=barber correct? You can't tell the difference to the case above, so I'm not convinced.
• Have you ever seen a pure barbershop, who does not cut your hair? I haven't (and I've been to several barbershops in German), all barbershops I've seen so far also cut hair. So shop=hairdresser+hairdresser=barber gives no information whether or not they cut hair.

For all cases, the barber=* would fit nicely. I think such a tagging scheme would not confuse mappers, because it's a widely used thing to have yes/no/only values. For me these values were quite obvious.

When the barber and hairdresser are separated within the same building, then a shared node for both could be used with barber=yes or two separate nodes (maybe they are two different companies?) could be used with barber=no on the one and barber=only on the other. Works just fine.

I love the idea of tagging barbershops, but I don't think hairdresser=barber is a good tag for this.

--Hauke-stieler (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Definitely understand your rationale and I think there are pros and cons to the various approaches. As I've noted in the proposal, this was discussed in the Community Forum topic and the proposed was the solution chosen by the majority. If there's significant support for another approach, then I'm happy to revisit! Casey boy (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether we can find other values ​​for hairdresser=* besides barber. (As for deprecating the simple male=* and female=* keys, I think that's great (especially for non-binary people looking for a more men like style hairdresser shop), so hairdresser=barber is an improvement anyway) --快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would prefere a specific tag for a specific shop, like shop=barber, but if the ideia is to include it in the hairdresser category, I like this approach better shop=hairdresser + barber=(yes/no/only). As I see it, comparing it with the proposal, it's more elegant, less ambiguous and more flexible. --AntMadeira (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the approach primary shop=hairdresser + secondary tag. But even better than the pseudo-boolean Tag barber=yes/no/only is the secondary Tag hairdresser=beard/male/female/children/long_hair as semicolon separated value. I'd like to avoid having two primary tags and I want to avoid pseudo-boolean tags. --Geonick (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Difference between barber and male hairdresser

Around here, we have hairdressers declaring their target audience on their shop front signs and other media for: "women", "men", "children", a combination of these and non-specific. We also have a wide variety of beauty shops that can be tagged appropriately. I have seen a few fancy, expensive new venues that try to import the US culture by declaring themselves as a "barber shop". How does a mapper tell the difference? Do I only add the new tag on those which have "barber shop" in their name? Bkil (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think, as always, this comes down to local mapper and local community judgement - you know your local area the best. Personally, it seems that somewhere with "barber shop" in the name probably warrants adding barber shop tags, but I would defer to you and your local community on that! Casey boy (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The archaic profession of "borbély" is practically nonexistent as of 2023. 99.999% of shops are titled synonyms for "fodrász" (hairdresser) or "szépségszalon" (beauty), and the remaining 0.001% may be a licensed foreign or foreign-sounding franchise that includes the English term "Barber shop" as a marketing gimmick (stats made up) I wouldn't think that we would be mapping this based on your above guidance. Bkil (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. It sounds like maybe barbershops aren't a "thing" in your part of the world, so this tag probably won't get much use in your area. But barbers are definitely popular in other parts of the world and really do need their own tagging in those parts. Casey boy (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

For me shop=hairdresser + male=only or male=preferred should be documented in the wiki for male=* and should solve this problem. If the issue is to tag that the hairdresser also grooms your beard, which was traditional done by hairdressers in Germany, but now this has been lost as a common service, then this should be tagged with e.g beard_grooming=yes. --Fabi2 (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

beauty=beard;mustache

If you specifically know that a given place offers special beard and mustache trimming services and this is the objective criteria for differentiation, why not tag them as shop=beauty + beauty=beard;mustache? Bkil (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the beauty=* is not used with the shop=hairdresser (not according to the wiki and it's actually not used in real life). Furthermore, I think the downside of this approach is that you can neither tag a barber-only shop nor a no-barbing-at-all shop. --Hauke-stieler (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal for individuals of various gender identity to drop by in a beauty salon. They offer many services that are popular universally: tattoo removal, waxing, permanent laser hair removal at certain parts (some even use it against facial hair or strays), dying or curling their hair and beards, massage (there's a strong following who also go for other skin treatments and botox as well). I don't think I had seen beauty salons dedicated to men at all - most of what I've seen were all unisex. Hence why I would be against somehow reserving beauty salons for women (this actually sounds insulting). Note that beauty=hair is also coming up at times as a valid combination. Bkil (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not "the" objective criteria. It's an example of what a barber shop might traditionally offer. Additionally, barber shops are an establishment that cuts hair, rather than providing beauty services. I don't think shop=beauty would be the right top-level tag at all. Casey boy (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is inappropriate, mentioned beard and mustache trimming services are not the main service provided by barbershops. Although many of them are indeed very common in many barbershops, hairdresser shops and beauty shops should really be separated.--快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

barber is a synonym for a hairdresser

We may be coming from different cultural circles, but the terminology sounds misleading:

A hairdresser may also be referred to as a 'barber' or 'hairstylist' [1]
The term "barber" is used both as a professional title and to refer to hairdressers who specialize in men's hair [...] both are regulated by the State Board of Cosmetology and there is no longer a legal difference in barbers and cosmetologists [2]

Bkil (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly think there are cultural/linguistical differences across the globe. I agree that barbers are a type of hairdresser, but I would also say that not all hairdressers are barbers. Hence why I'm proposing we use a value under the hairdresser key to specify that a hairdressers is a barbers (rather than a salon or unisex location).

The second quoted text is clearly specific to a certain jurisdiction. I have no idea who or what the "State Board of Cosmetology" (there seem to be several in the US) but it has no legal meaning to me. Even so, tags aren't purely about legal definitions. They're also to describe what function an amenity carries out. There may not be a legal difference between a barber and a cosmetologist (incidentally a term I have never used), but that doesn't mean there isn't a practical difference in many instances. Casey boy (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Tags for hairdressers specialized for women and children

So if we are going to create a separate tag for hairdressers specializing for men, what separate tags do you recommend for hairdressers specializing for women and children? We have way more of those over here. And as you mention in the text, some hairdressers who advertise specializing for women do also offer basic services for men as well. And indeed unisex, generalized hairdressers also exist who advertise themselves on their sign with just the translation for the word "hairdresser", "hairdressers", "hairdresser's" [place], a tongue in cheek phrase related to hairs in general or for the literal phrase "men-women hairdresser" (better translated as "hairdresser for men & women") - the latter is a much stronger signal about their generalization. Bkil (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Any value you like. You could coopt hairdresser=children for hairdressers specialized in children. Consider hairdresser=* to indicate a hairdresser's specialization(s); someone even used hairdresser=african_hair_braiding, which given that this requires a good amount of specialist knowledge and skills (just like a barber needs to be deft with a razor blade and know the ins and outs of beard hair) seems appropriate. hairdresser=* can be used with a list of values, so barber;children is possible (although rare). For hairdressers specialized in traditionally female hairstyles some suitable tag-value could to be sought. Something like salon probably wouldn't be too far of the mark, but that is a question for a broader audience, and outside of the scope of this proposal. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

If we used hairdresser=children for those specialized for children where the sign says "for child", hairdresser=women if the sign says "women", why can't we use hairdresser=men when the sign says "men"? "barber" is a less accessible and confusing term - many may not clearly understand it if you look around the globe. "Salon", "beauty salon", "cosmetics" and some more specific terms around here always imply shop=beauty, so I wouldn't mix it with shop=hairdresser. Bkil (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A barbers (at least in many countries) won't say "for men". As noted in the proposal, that would be illegal in my country and many others. I do understand the thought process behind specialities or "for" tagging (e.g., healthcare:speciality or social_facility:for) but I don't think that applies to barbers (for reasons outlined below). Casey boy (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be a language barrier between you and many parts of the world then. The native translation of "masculine" is "férfias" (men-like) or "hímnemű" (male gendered) - one is worse than the other if using "men" is offensive in your local language... The sign says "férfi fodrászat", "női fodrászat", "férfi-női fodrászat", "gyermek fodrászat" (or some other variant such as "fodrász", "hajvágóstúdió", "hajvágás") and it is perfectly legal. If they wrote it in any other form, many would not understand. Bkil (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm writing in British English, which is the language we use for OSM tagging. But, fundamentally, the point is that some women may want to get masculine style haircuts and may chose go to a barbers to get those. So rather than "for men", which in British English implies women cannot go there (which would be illegal in many countries), I've specifically worded this proposal as "masculine style". I will leave it to native speakers to work out how best to translate that into their languages. Casey boy (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Unisex and "women hairdressers" are perfectly capable of cutting masculine hairlines, but women are not forbidden from entering "men hairdressers" - they would be more than happy to accommodate them there. Fortunately, citizens here are not afraid to use their logic and need less protection in this sense than in the US for example where one has to write on a microwave oven that you must not place a cat inside while it is turned on. Let me ask the converse question: how would you tag the type of hairdresser in which a man should enter when they have long hair that they want done inspired by a feminine style? You proposed a new tag for something you describe as a "salon" for this. Was it a new subtype of hairdresser specializing for feminine hairstyles or did you imply that it is redundant and only beauty salons exist in that niche in your country? Bkil (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

shop=hairdresser. Why would it need any further tagging than that? Casey boy (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I also wouldn't necessarily want to extend the scope of this proposal, however, the whole point of the proposal process is to try to come up with a scheme that "fits" within the present framework and which can be extended to fit other naturally adjacent phenomena cleanly. So, in this specific case, I would recommend coming up with a scheme that can accommodate the above commonly observed concepts. People can use male=yes/no/only, female=yes/no/only, child=yes/no/only to map this at present, however, after introducing "barber" which is an orthogonal concept, the resulting map data would start to get garbled pretty soon as people started using hairdresser=barber + child=yes and other combinations. And I don't support a proposal until I can see how it guarantees that the signal to noise ratio in the database won't deteriorate. Bkil (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the point that you're missing/I haven't made clear is that that barbers often have a totally distinct style compared to other hairdressers (though it seems that isn't the case in Hungary?). It isn't solely about a gender divide (though it would have been historically). Using gender tags alone, you cannot provide enough specification as to whether an establishment is a regular hairdresser's that cuts men's hair or whether it's a barbers (even if you used male=only, which is actually not well used currently). Also worth noting that male/female are documented as access restriction, i.e., for toilets/changing rooms. Using them in the way you suggest could be increasing the noise of the database. Casey boy (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

When I saw african_hair_braiding and children, I felt that the hairdresser=* key could indeed be very universal and general. I suggest putting these two tags together in this proposal.--快乐的老鼠宝宝 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree that a proposal that introduces hairdresser=* must at a minimum list the most well known values to be desirable for mapping (such as: present in the database, present in QA tools, present on signs on the street). This is required for it to not clash with other established tagging practices or even with itself and that after it gets accepted, mass renaming can happen and QA & tools can update their presets in a single go. I can not accept a proposal without this quality. Bkil (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just that barber shops simply specialise in hairdressing for men (though I specifically say masculine styles rather than men). In many places, they're a totally distinct type of place where you get your hair cut. I'm not sure the same is true for your examples? I'm not proposing any additional tags, but hairdresser=unisex would make sense to me. There was also mention of hairdresser=salon too, but again, I'm not proposing that. Casey boy (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I can not accept hairdresser=salon. "salon" does not imply specialization for cutting long hair: [3] [4] While as I've already mentioned, we already have a separate tag for shop=beauty, so it would not be a good idea to replicate it under shop=hairdresser hairdresser=beauty_salon. As I've also mentioned, it's immoral (illegal?) to assume that a beauty salon is only for women. Note that a "unisex" hairdresser (one who does not post a sign) is different from a hairdresser shop who employs three workers: one specialized for long hair (posted as "women"), one specializing for children (posted as "children") and one specializing for short cuts and beards (posted as "men"). It's also easier guidance for a mapper if they can tick checkboxes within a preset on the ground when they are in front of the shop, reading its signs (e.g., hairdresser=male;female;children, or hairdresser=long_hair;beard;children). Bkil (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

One analogy I came up with is the distinction between amenity=pub and amenity=bar. They both, fundamentally, serve alcoholic drinks. You could try to split them based on the type of drinks they serve (maybe more beers versus cocktails) or whether music is played etc but that is hard to do. Ultimately, the thing that sets them apart is that they have a different "feel" or "vibe" to them and so are distinct amenities. In some countries, the difference between a pub and a bar is clear; in others it is less so. It's kind of the same here. Both barbers and hairdressers cut hair. But barbers are different from hairdressers, just as pubs are different from bars. Maybe that distinction doesn't really exist in some countries but it certainly does in others. (This analogy might not be perfect, just thought it might help!) Casey boy (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

In Germany (and possibly elsewhere) it’s really, really common for a “Friseur” (hairdresser) to say in the shop window what kind of customers they serve (men, women, children…), like for example here (Damen = ladies, Herren = gentlemen). We can tag this with male and female and there’s also a StreetComplete quest that asks people about this. (copied from the forum thread) -Bkil (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Status can be moved to proposal

The infobox header still shows this proposal as a draft, it can probably be moved to proposed. Clear proposal, sounds good to me. --JeroenHoek (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved: Thanks. Updated. Casey boy (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What will the infobox say?

The initial part of the introduction section is automatically used for taginfo and by certain editors. What phrasing do you propose? "Barber - a hairdresser specializing in men's haircut?" Bkil (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd propose using what I've written in this proposal's infobox definition. But open to suggestions. Casey boy (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

female=designated vs. access restriction

If the Wiki says male=yes is a legal access restriction, it’s not documenting how the tag is actually used. For example the StreetComplete quest asks “which customers visit this hairdresser?” You can answer men, women, anyone, and not signed. If you answer “men” it sets male=yes. Nothing about women being forbidden to enter. (copied from forum) -Bkil (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that "male/female" in this context does not imply any gender roles or restrictions. Although, there is no inherent ambiguity for locals, from a language theoretical point, the phrase posted on the signs "női fodrász"/"női hajvágás" can actually be interpreted and translated in three distinct meanings: "haircuts by a woman", "haircuts for women" or "haircuts of women's style" (the last meaning is implied). So the consideration is not due to a biological or legal discrimination, it's just that professionals who work at a hairdresser specializing in the hairstyle of women-men-children have seen and worked with the respective hairstyle much more often than the other. They don't really care for the biological gender of the customer, it's just statistics related to prior experience and a compact form of signing this. We are open to suggestions to how it would be best to compactly and symmetrically represent such marking, but the last periodical products proposal showed that sometimes it's best to just use words that most people understand. -Bkil (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable definition

I am not inherently opposed to a hairdresser= subtag for this if mappers see the need. But after watching this proposal and the community discussion for a while, I'm still a little confused on what exactly distinguishes a "barber" from other hairdressers in this context. In other words, what specific attributes would a place have to have to be an OSM "hairdresser=barber"? Some of the attributes mentioned include: primarily serving men (though the proposal goes on to note that this is usually not explicitly the case), providing shaving/straight razor services, having "masculine" decor (?), and displaying a barber pole. Is one of these particularly important, or is it generally just a vibe-based subjective assessment? If it's the latter, it wouldn't be the only subjective OSM tag, but I wouldn't see the use of using it since it would be unclear what it actually tells data consumers about the business. If the goal is to indicate that a business would, e.g. shave a beard, perhaps some sort of hairdresser:services or beard_shaving=yes tag would be more useful. Since the stakes are low (any data consumer could easily ignore the hairdresser=* subtag), I don't strongly oppose the tagging or anything if others want to use it (ATYL and all). But I'm still not sure precisely what problem with existing tagging schemes this proposal is solving. --Willkmis (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Like many things in OSM, definitions for these things can vary based on location. In the UK (where I'm based), the distinction between a hairdresser salon and a barbers is very obvious - however, I appreciate it may not be in the other places. Key themes are: masculine style cuts, male oriented services, barbers chairs, a barbers pole and, very often, the term "barbers" in the name of the shop. Usually it's cheaper to get a haircut at a barbers than a hair salon, though this is definitely location/brand dependent too.

The main problem this is solving is moving away from ambiguous tagging using access restrictions. If I want to find places to get my haircut, I'll search for barbers near me. Currently this doesn't really work in OSM. This tag would fix that.

Just a quick note on masculine style decor, I'll try and improve that wording. What I meant is that there'll often be things like: photos of men on the wall demonstrating various masculine hair styles, silhouettes of men with beards, imagery of razors and clippers or those items on display, sometimes a focus on activities like sports or music. A quick Google image search for things I mean.

Casey boy (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rationale has been updated to provide more specific examples of verifiable distinctions Casey boy (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)