Quest suggestion: hairdresser for men/women/all

[FloEdelmann]

General

Affected tag(s) to be modified/added: female=yes or male=yes (for shop=hairdresser)
Question asked: Which customers does this hairdresser serve?

male=no or female=no could be tagged together with female=yes or male=yes, respectively.

Checklist

Checklist for quest suggestions (see guidelines):

• 🚧 To be added tag is established and has a useful purpose
• 🤔 Any answer the user can give must have an equivalent tagging (Quest should not reappear to other users when solved by one)
• 🐿️ Easily answerable by any pedestrian from the outside but a survey is necessary
• 💤 Not an overwhelming percentage of quests have the same answer (No spam)
  → most will probably be female=yes+male=yes, but the exceptions are not totally rare, see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rx0 and https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop%3Dhairdresser#combinations
• 🕓 Applies to a reasonable number of map data (Worth the effort)
  → see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1rwX

Ideas for implementation

Element selection:

nodes with
  shop = hairdresser
  and !female and !male and !unisex

Or, to cover edge cases like this one I discovered:

nodes with
  shop = hairdresser
  and female != yes and male != yes and unisex != yes

In this case, should the respective other existing keys should be deleted, in addition to setting female=yes / male=yes? Or should the unusual only value also be considered valid?

Metadata needed: None.

Proposed UI: Simple text selection: "Women only" / "Men only" / "Both"

---

Note: this is a follow-up suggestion to #4829. The unisex tag is considered "burnt" and should not be tagged by StreetComplete. For the quest selection, it can still be considered.

[Discostu36]

I find it an important information for non-binary people to know if a hairdresser is gender neutral or if they have to decide to use a door for men or a door for women. In my opinion, a quest without a third option should not be done.

[mnalis]

If unisex is considered burnt, we should use this quest to clean it up. I.e. match on

nodes with
  shop = hairdresser
  and female != yes and male != yes

and then upon answering the quest remove any existing unisex tag.

[Discostu36]

Please do not remove tags from OSM without an accepted deprecation proposal.

[matkoniecz]

If unisex is consider burnt, we should use this quest to clean it up.

The problem is that it is burnt without a proper replacement existing for some of tasks it was tried to be used.

Please do not remove tags from OSM without an accepted deprecation proposal.

There are some cases where it is entirely fine without deprecation proposal (though not in this specific case).

[mnalis]

I find it an important information for non-binary people to know if a hairdresser is gender neutral or if they have to decide to use a door for men or a door for women. In my opinion, a quest without a third option should not be done.

While I agree that it is important information for non-binary people, there are few issues with that third option, though:

• how is causal mapper to know when non-binary people are welcome? Do hairdressers in your area usually put such notices on the door?

• how would you actually tag that third option? Current male/female/unisex is not adequate. To the best of my knowledge, there are no widely accepted unambiguous tags currently existing (there are few ideas: gender_segregated=* , enby proposal, Gender proposal, and I think that was at least one other one which I'm missing). Any of them would need to have community acceptance before tagging them in SC, I think. There is always an option to leave a note, though.

• see somewhat related discussion in Quest: Gender-segregated toilets #2603

• increasing the number of options from 2 to 3, increases the number of answers from 3 (m,f,mf) to 7 (m,f,mf,x,xm,xf,xmf); meaning it might need different UI (checkboxes-model like for recycling quest) rather then simple three-answer quest.

[mnalis]

Also, at the quest level, I find those problems:

• There a difference between sex and gender. Which of them is this quest to be about? Or is it not about either of them, but about haircut style (e.g. if a male with long hair wants to have to stereotypical female haircut, can they go into "hair saloon for women"? What about if they put lipstick on? What about if they are clearly male in all distinguishable physical respects and want a male haircut, but "identify as a woman" and want to go into "woman-only hair saloon"? Would it be acceptable? How about in that other country? And how is causal mapper to know that?). It seems to me, that there are issues not only at OSM level, but at societal level that are still unclear - even on per-country basis, much less something that is accepted worldwide.

• also, I do not think ":chipmunk: Easily answerable by any pedestrian from the outside but a survey is necessary" has been addressed satisfactorily?

[mnalis]

Please do not remove tags from OSM without an accepted deprecation proposal.
There are some cases where it is entirely fine without deprecation proposal (though not in this specific case).

Note that unisex=* wiki does however say:

In case of conflict with other gender-based tags (e.g. female=*), resolve in favour of the more specific tag.

Which seems to suggest that mappers should replace unisex tag if usage is clear male+female (or leave note to later add description=* or something if the unisex meant something different in that specific case).

[Discostu36]

• how is causal mapper to know when non-binary people are welcome? Do hairdressers in your area usually put such notices on the door?

On the contrary, if there is no sign about gender on the door, I'd consider it a unisex hairdresser where every person is welcome.

• how would you actually tag that third option? Current male/female/unisex is not adequate.

In my opinion, it is adequate and the definition is quite clear: Unisex clothing, toilets or hairdressers can be used by anybody, they are gender-neutral. But as can be seen on wiki, there seem to be people with a different opinion on that.

So from my perspective, there are now these options, as long as there is no clear definition on wiki:

1. Wait for a proposal that solves the conflict with a clear definition of unisex key. Don't do this quest until that is the case.
2. SC chooses the unisex definition that means "all (non-)genders can use it" and creates the quest like proposed in the original issue

Of course, theoretically, there is a third option, but I hope nobody will argue for that:
3. For SC there is only male and female

[mnalis]

On the contrary, if there is no sign about gender on the door, I'd consider it a unisex hairdresser where every person is welcome.

That assumption seem culturally dependent to me (and incorrect in Croatia, see below).

There are basically 4 categories in Croatia (ignoring for the moment rampant confusion about sex-vs-gender e.g. female-vs-woman), and them being called the same at least for the last hundred years, so it is likely they haven't caught up with non-binary distinctions:

• those which have signed "za žene i muškarce" (literally meaning "for woman and man"). Most popular category. I'd tag those male=yes+female=yes. Can do both "za žene" and "za muškarce" (although barber services for males might be missing sometimes).

  pic

  

• those which have signed "za žene" (literally meaning "for woman"). Implying that (Croatia being quite conservative in that regard) they specialize in "woman hairstyles" (esp. long hair styles, undulations, highlights, hair inserts, hair washing & conditioning & bleaching & coloring, feminine perfumes, etc. Also sometimes offer makeup services and other stuff (although I'd tag shop=beauty instead if it offers more then extra makeup to go with hairstyle). Second most popular, as (see conservative part) women are willing to pay most money for extravagant hairstyles taking long to make. Also, stereotypically, often one of the most popular places to get/spread gossip. I'd tag those male=no+female=yes.

  pic

  

• those which have signed "za muškarce" (literally meaning "for man"). It implies mostly: that they don't have anyone who can do "women hairstyles", don't offer hair coloring, has no feminine parfumes etc. It also oft implies that you can get barber services there too. I'd tag those male=yes+female=no. With few exceptions, usually much more spartan offers, much quicker turnaround time, and cheaper than ones for woman.

  pic

  

• those which are unsigned. It is not to be assumed that they are for both man and women. I would not tag it, unless I intended to chat with employees if they do both man or women or not. If anything, it is to be assumed that is probably small single-person company (called "obrt" here), which is only advertising information required by law, usually in typized format like this:

  pic

  

---

So, I'd say in Croatia signage is probably mostly about the services available, and not about entrance restrictions / segregation based on sex (or even gender). Similar to e.g. the Kosher restaurant -- you can enter and eat there even if you're not a Jew, but do not expect to be able to order your favorite pork ribs.

In fact (AFAIK) in Croatia if you are registered for selling services to the public (i.e. you are not registered as private club with membership, where you can make up mostly any rules), and you are not covered by certain exceptions (mostly cases where genitalia or breasts or areas very close to it may be exposed - like toilets, saunas, massage parlors, gym communal showers / dressing rooms, doctors etc) you are not legally allowed to refuse service dependent on protected discrimination criteria (e.g. you may not refuse service because someone is black, or woman, or transgender, or of islamic religion, or minority, or living with partner outside of church marriage etc.). You may still discriminate on non-protected differences (e.g. "suit&tie only", "no swimsuits" etc.)

[rhhsm]

It seems we need to look strictly at what is indicated on the shop window and tag accordingly, and not take into account how welcome various genders are in the shop because there could be endless variations. I don't think a surveyor should investigate whether a woman that feels male and wants a male haircut might be welcome at a hairdresser that has "Men's hairdresser" written on the window. I think the question should be "Which sexes are shown on the sign of this hairdresser"? and the answer options should be "Women", "Men" and "No sign". Unfortunately there is no established tag for the third option.

[westnordost]

Yes. male and female on hairdressers is about hairstyles / barber services, that's clear.

Anyway, seems a useful thing to ask. I'd consider whether barber shops (i.e. "for men") should get tagged with just male=yes instead of also with female=no etc. because that's what usually on the sign. The sign will never say "not for women" but "for men".

[Discostu36]

So the question would be more like "What are the signed customers of this hairdresser"? But this would still leave the question of what to tag if there is none.

"Men" --> male=yes
"Women" --> female=yes
"Men and women" --> male=yes and female=yes
"Not signed" --> unixex=yes? gender:signed=no?

[westnordost]

Hm, I guess both male:signed=no and female:signed=no

[Discostu36]

Yeah, maybe.

[mnalis]

It seems to me mostly defined then. Only question that remains is:

• should the quest permanently ignore any hairdressers which have unisex=* tag set (thus preserving any ambiguous meaning that original mapper may have intended), or
• should the quest be asked regardless of whether unisex=* is set, and when user has chosen current state of the hairdresser set male=* / female=* tags and remove unisex=* (thus fixing ambiguity as confirmed by new mapper).

As unisex=* wiki says:

In case of conflict with other gender-based tags (e.g. female=*), resolve in favour of the more specific tag.

(which the user on the ground definitely knows the best what is the current situation).

---

Whatever the answer, it seems to be relatively easy quest to make.
Are there any takers interested in trying to implement this quest?

[Discostu36]

should the quest permanently ignore any hairdressers which have unisex=* tag set, or

I think it should ignore items with unisex=yes and ask for items with unisex=no. It should not delete unisex tags.

[mnalis]

As nobody else volunteered, I'll implement this quest.

I'd still like @westnordost opinion on this choice: #4833 (comment) (I myself and the wiki find it preferable to make situation unambiguous when we have the chance with mapper on the ground, rather then to simply "sweep the problem under the rug" - but not everybody seems to agree).

[westnordost]

I agree with your statement. What better time to make something unambiguous than when someone is actually on-site. However, no point in fighting against windmills: If iD pushes a different tagging, it makes little sense to push the other way.