Talk:Key:lgbtq

Should rainbow pedestrian crossing be tagged ?

There is a few rainbow pedestrian crossing here and then (I did see some in US and Europe, and heard of more in place I haven't been yet). Is it worth tagging that ? --Misc (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they should be mapped. I don't think the lgbtq=* tag is a good, because that is for things created for LGBTQ+ people, and these are for all people. Maybe tourism=artwork with a artwork_subject=* and artwork_type=*? Rorym (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mhh, I did tag a few monuments as lgbtq already ( for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37737807 ), guess I should change that too. So, artwork_subject=lgbtq, or something else ? --Misc (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For cases like that (monuments/memorials) the lgbtq=* tag might be appropriate. The monument is actually primarily for/about LGBTQ people. I thought you meant something like this rainbow coloured zebra crossing, which were not primarily created for LGBTQ+ people. Rorym (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I definitely did spoke about those kind of zebra, yes. But in the cases I had in mind, the crossings were in the so-called gayborhood. For example, in Paris, the crossing is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=48.85902&mlon=2.35370#map=19/48.85902/2.35370 in Le Marais. They were supposed to be temporary for the Paris Pride in 2018, but someone vandalized them 2 times with explicit messages ("LGBT, get out of france"), prompting the mayor to make the installation permanent. It seems that Paris is not a isolated case cf https://hornet.com/stories/rainbow-crosswalks-vandalized/, hence my interrogation since the link with the LGBTQ community is quite explicit. But of course, cis-straight-dyadic folks can also use them as well. --Misc (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas on how to tag them? Rorym (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess we can add something to crossing=*, like "crossing:rainbow=yes", if we do not want to use the lgbtq tagging. --Misc (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I still think tourism=artwork with artwork_subject=lgbtq (or artwork_subject=lgbtq_pride) and artwork_type=crossing is the best approach. Rorym (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rorym: so, I tried to add it on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70601415 , not sure if I did it right (first time I do add crossing, so I likely made a mess and would love someone to review, except I forgot to check the box for that :/ ) --Misc (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want to invent a tag for 5 gay people's special interest thing?--Chazanov (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to reuse a existing one for sure, but there isn't one it seems, so I guess we have to invent one. As for tagging it, I wasn't sure, but now I did see there is a few of them around (and likely more coming as cities are trying to signal they are progressive, since there is vandalism going on quite often (cf the links I gave), I think there is a interest for sure, if only to know where it did happened. And as I said, that's usually strongly corrolated with the concept of gay neighboorhood, who are a topic of academics research (as seen by bibliography on wikipedia), so I also think that where a city put those is a interesting fact. --Misc (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, why not! This is OSM. Rorym (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What about adding tourism=artwork + historic=memorial + memorial=rainbow_crossing to the existing node ? It is a commemoration after all. LySioS (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems that some people also use surface:colour=rainbow --Misc (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

And people also suggest =* (cf lgbtq wiki page). However, in Paris, that's a different type of marking.The main stripes are white, but the border are rainbow colored. And I feel that using this tag might conflict with other usage documented on the wiki --Misc (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Can this be used for a lesbian bar?

> amenity=bar + lgbtq=primary + lgbtq:women=primary: A bar which is aimed at LGBTQ women.

Is there something more specific?

Tuxayo (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

According to this tagging scheme, that is correct. What’s wrong with that? Yes it’s 3 tags, but that’s not too bad IMO. What type of specificness would you like? (BTW “lesbian bar” would exclude bi/pan/etc women, is that what you mean? Or do you just mean a bar for non-straight women/wlw?

I suspect that while the mainstream terminology is not exactly accurate, a lesbian bar is the term used by most people for a bar that would be aimed a wlw, and may or may not have entry restricted to women. I am kinda unsure if we can and want to encode all the details on the map, something broad enough would surely be sufficient. --Misc (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know “lesbian bar” is in very common usage, and for practical reasons people might just use it. I'm just trying to gently remind people that we can easily change our language to be more inclusive of more people.

LGBT friendly spaces

Can we add a lgbtq=friendly or lgbtq=welcome tag :)

The biggest problem with adding that is that it's much more fuzzy than a place that calls itself a LGBTQ venue. I totally know what you mean, “a bar I'd be comfortable to bring a date” is a definition I heard from one gay man, and that's exactly what I understand “LGBTQ friendly” to mean.... is there a good, more “objective” way to define it? maybe “a venue that most of the local LGBTQ community, or respected LGBTQ+ travel guides, refers to as LGBTQ* friendly”? Rorym (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I also feel that the information could become outdated sooner or later and something should be taken in account for that. The situation is the same for others keys like diet, opening hours, but they are easier to verify. If tomorrow, my favorite place suddenly become less LGBTQ friendly, it would be hard to see unless I bring a date, and something go bad. We also have the case of place being LGBTQ friendly, but suddenly overrun by non LGBTQ patrons (because that's a nice place), and thus, the place being offputing without any changes. --Misc (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good reason to not investigate how to tag this. Everything in the world changes. If we let that dictate things, we wouldn't map anything in OSM.

yeah, I just wonder if the actual OSM structure is the right way to tag that. In a ideal world, we could have date of last tagging/verification, maybe a number of people who would agree on the assessment, or something more granular that "lgbt friendly" vs not "lgbt friendly" (and maybe comments). But I kinda think I just described yelp. --Misc (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

These tags have more usage than "yes", "no", and "only" so I wouldn't be opposed to adding them to the wiki. A bar in my area is pretty explicitly LGBTQ friendly (pride flags on the walls) but they don't market themselves primarily toward LGBTQ clientele. Invidious (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of places local to me that explicitly state their acceptance of LGBTQ and other minority groups (e.g. BIPoC) through membership in alliances or posted signs on their entrances. For instance, St. Mark's Lutheran Church in Baltimore includes on their website that they are "A Reconciling in Christ Assembly" (at the bottom of the page) and hangs a Pride flag on their exterior wall. My place of work has a sign on the window with Pride colors stating that the business is a Safe Space (as do many other local businesses). Huntington, WV, USA has a campaign called Open to All. Any of these are indicators to me that a place could be tagged lgbtq=welcome or the like, and is objectively verifiable. TagInfo shows that lgbtq=welcome is (far) second only to primary, ahead of friendly, yes, only, and no. To avoid conflicting values between "welcome" and "friendly", I think it would be best to land on one and add it to the wiki. --pkoby (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Over the years since your comment, lgbtq=welcome emerged as several times more common than lgbtq=friendly (refer to the TagHistory graph) so I've listed that as the value in use in my rework of this page, added a warning about lgbtq=friendly as a "PossibleSynonym" at the bottom of the page, and included links to lgbtq:signed=* which solves the verifiability issue. Lumikeiju (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

LGBTQ-unfriendly places ?

Does it make sense to add LGBTQ-unfriendly places, as a warning for places that might be unsafe ? Rakoo

Do you have a example in mind ? (cause I think one important question is how can we find that a location might be unsafe, besides the usual nation wide problems ) --Misc (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the issue, there's no simple, objective way to tag places as unfriendly, just like there is nothing for being friendly. Things can change rather quickly. Especially when discrimination is illegal it will never be displayed officially, but always informally. --Rakoo (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

OSM is not a place for subjective reviews - there are other services for that, even some based on OSM data like Mangrove Reviews used by MapComplete!
A place that is signed as lgbtq=no can be tagged as such, as long as that information is verifiable via lgbtq:signed=yes.
I've updated these two articles to make these details clear. Lumikeiju (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Tag lgbtq=only doesn't make sense

The core principles of LGBTQ+ movement is diversity and inclusion. How can anybody be excluded as not LGBTQ+ person? That's why we have a + sign at the end. --Aas 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The tag "lgbtq=only" means "This venue is only for LGBTQ+ people" as stated in documentation. We just don't use "+" and other symbols other than a-z letters, undescore, digits 0-9 in key names. maro21 21:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Some meetings in community centers are only for queer peoples (i.e. trans group) but the same center have group for parents, friends (and trans too).

--Pyrog (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

lgbtq=no for countries where being LGBTQ is illegal?

Should we tag countries where it's illegal to be LGBTQ (such as Kenya, where State of the Map 2024 is being held) as lgbtq=no? It seems to me that it would be a valid tag, but I don't want to be accused of vandalism. Clara Hobbs (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Kenya (country) is not a venue, so no. maro21 23:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The tag's main definition doesn't specify venues, but places. "The lgbtq=* tag indicates LGBTQ+ community-friendly places for lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, etc. people." (emphasis mine). A country is a place, so I disagree with this "no". Clara Hobbs (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"lgbtq=no: This venue denies entry to LGBTQ+ people." Does Kenya deny entry to gays?

Yes, the tag is to tag "community-friendly places" (emphasis mine). Not to tag unfriendly places. Unless there is a sign in the airport in Kenya "LGBT are not welcome in this country".

lgbtq=* is a POI tag, added to POIs. We don't add e.g. smoking=no to countries. We mainly map what's on the ground, we rarely map local law. If smoking is prohibited in buildings in one country, we won't add smoking=no to every building. maro21 16:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What about stairs ?

There is a few rainbow coloured stairs in France, one in Nantes, one in Rennes, and at least one in Paris. I kinda ssume there is also elsewhere, but I do not know about them. Before mapping them (or rather map the one in Paris, because I know where it is), I would like to record a discussion on how it should be done. Like rainbow crossing, there is a few options, but less (for example, no crossing:markings=*). Should we go with surface:colour=* and document it, or is there a better option ? --Misc (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Could be simply lgbtq=yes ?

We have historic=memorial + memorial=plaque + lgbtq=primary.

primary seem a bit strange, isn't it ?

The meaning is the plaque/memorial commemorate a queer people.

See Aux oubliées et oubliés ! OSM LGBTQ+map

--Pyrog (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest tagging these as artworks: tourism=artwork + artwork_type=mural (plus, for example, subject:wikidata=Q51406 or similar). Lumikeiju (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)