Gah! Why did I choose "lgbtq" as the tag when it supports full Unicode. I could have used "πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ" as the tag!

One problem with using "πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ" as the key in an tag is that the wiki doesn't seem to like that as a URL/page title! 😈 There are undocumentable OSM tags! 😈😈

So I added that new tag "πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ" to , and it has ruffled a few feathers!

@rory I know you're joking. But the consumers don't all have full unicode available.

Parsing and analyzing OSM database is a PIAS already. Lets not make it worse by inserting emoji, flags and other un-semantic content or tags.

@berkes I might not be joking! πŸ™‚ 😈.

There is probably lots of unicode characters already in , so you should be able to parse it. You can always skip characters/tag.

It will certainly save you from having to keep adding letters to that wretched acronym.

I have a natural aversion to acronyms so I usually use a formula of the type β€œgender-based” + noun (e.g., gender-based discrimination), which I believe should remain understandable for generations to come. In a previous life I often had to dig into 200-300 year old documents and, after penetrating the handwriting and the language, you were still left to deal with the expressions of the day. Not fun πŸ˜›


Of course, πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ works too. It will *not* stand the test of time but it does have the advantage of being language-neutral (today, it is just as understandable to an English speaker as it is to a Korean speaker).


With just over 150 tagged objects, I don't think it's too late to propose for a change. 😁

@GOwin I've added those ~150. I'm reviewing everything tagged with "gay" and adding it.

@rory OSM / VGI is about making it easy to contribute. Using non-standard chars seems to be the opposite ;)

@blub heh, fair point.

Technically πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ is a standard for LGBTQ* issues, and in the editing software should expose an appropriate label rather than direct tag editing.

Saves the work of having to document them. 😜

@rory I looked at the discussion. It was a flashback to twenty years ago when the exact same discussions were being had concerning this β€œβ€ thing versus -8559 or even whatever used at the time. πŸ™‚

With the hindsight of that experience I would say: ignore the naysayers. They were wrong.

Pictograms () are here to stay, they are useful, and software should be fixed, sooner always better than latter. Someone has to break the chicken and egg circle for things to move forward.

@61 playing with computer systems, finding the edge cases, seeing where they break. It's the hacker spirit!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
En OSM Town | Mapstodon for OpenStreetMap

A Mapstodon instance for the OpenStreetMap Community (English language)! This site is under construction, and may change. Our francophone friends have a Mastodon instance: