Talk:Key:gender segregated

I could not figure out what this key means, but looking at taginfo, I saw that it is used 30 times only anyway, so I guess a documentation is not (yet) necessary. --U30303020 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Key and non-gendered folks

I don't like this key so much because it leaves out gender non-binary/non-conforming/A-sexual or whatever people and I think it's important to include them in things like this. I know the key segregated is confined to cycle-ways though, but there still has to be a more inclusionary key we can use. "segregated" outside of it's usage on paths is also kind of a dirty old fashioned word these days also. Although, I guess that's a separate issue, but the best way to go IMO would be to use a key that doesn't include it or gender. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add a enby=* tag for places reserved for people who are neither male nor female. Also, I think you meant agender rather than asexual. As for GNC and trans people, see the topic I started in this talk page. Gjvnq (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Transgender restrooms

I propose using gender segregated=by identity for places that despite having gender segregation, make it very clear it is by identity rather than by official IDs or by anatomy.

one feature, one element

If I know that toilets, showers etc are segregated, I map them as separate elements. It's in the name "segregated" that those features should be disjoined in OSM. Gender segregated toilets and showers are physically devided, e.g. by walls, separate access paths, or separate entrances. I don't see what this key adds but believe it is violating One feature, one OSM element principle.

-- Freetz (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"Toilets" is facility, even with the separate sections or room. But if toilets are located in the different buildings, or different sides of big building, they should be mapped separately. (IMHO) Something B (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

facility is not an OSM terminology, and I don't get what you wanted to say. Separated toilets are separate amenities that usually have different toilets:position=* and capacity=*, whether mapped or not - even if they are next to each other. In separated toilets, access is usually limited to the designated gender. I think if one feels strong about mapping that specific toilets are separated, one should use separated OSM elements.

--Freetz (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that mapping segregated features as one element or two elements should be mapper`s choice, depending from situation. Both ways are correct. Something B (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I propose gender:use=separated/shared. It just sounds nicer to me than gender segregation.

--Freetz (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)