Ask "Are there toilets here?" on restaurants, cafes and fast food

[andrewharvey]

How to Reproduce
Select an amenity=cafe which doesn't have toilet=* tagged. Cycle through the quests until it presents you with "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible?"

Expected Behavior
This quest is confusing because there is no toilet. I see under "other answer" there is the option "there is no toilet here" but users might not find that and instead choose "No" since there is no toilet which is wheelchair accessible.

If the user chooses no it will tag toilets=yes which is wrong.

I'm surprise we don't yet have a "Are there toilets here" quest. In my experience it's worth asking this because it's very common for establishments like restaurants, cafes and fast food outlets to either have or not have toilets. If we asked this first before asking about wheelchairs it would solve this issue.

Versions affected
60.3

[matkoniecz]

See also #4860

[mnalis]

under "other answer" there is the option "there is no toilet here" but users might not find that and instead choose "No" since there is no toilet which is wheelchair accessible.

Perhaps that "There is no toilet there" could be promoted to regular answer instead of being behind Uhh... in "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible" quest?

Especially (as you note), we don't ask specific "Are there toilets here" quest before this.

If the user chooses no it will tag toilets=yes which is wrong.

Hm, that is indeed confusing and might lead to a lot of wrong answers in case toilets=* is not already tagged.

Indeed, I can see that the users who are presented only with No / Yes / Partially answers to "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible" will likely choose No when there is no toilet (which is technically correct - if there are toilets at all, there are no wheelchair-accessible toilets either), which will result in mistagging of toilets=*

I'm surprise we don't yet have a "Are there toilets here" quest.

As noted in related ticket, we do. It is just not being asked on cafes for the reasons specified there (e.g. spammy in many countries, no dedicated toilet-mappers). 🤷

Promoting that "There is no toilet there" answer to regular answer would:

• make the "wheelchair toilets" quest less confusing when asked on places without any toilets
• avoid the (probably common) mistagging of toilets=yes instead of toilets=no in cases when user answers that there are no wheelchair-accessible toilets
• make the "wheelchair toilets" quest double as the "Are there toilets here" quest, but without any of the issues mentioned in the linked ticket

[westnordost]

The quest asks
"Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible?"
and not
"Does this place have a wheelchair accessible toilet?"

It is not technically correct to answer "no" when there are no toilets. Because that wasn't the question. Hence, I find the placement of the "No toilets here" in the other answers menu perfectly fitting.

[mnalis]

But do you agree that "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible?" question is confusing in situations when there are no toilets at all? I'm afraid that many users won't find Uh... menu (See e.g. #5974) and thus will select most matching answer No, resulting in incorrect tagging.

Currently it is a loaded question, and that should be avoided IMHO.

[mnalis]

While promoting "There are no toilets here" answers to regular answer seems like a best solution to me, there are other alternatives:

• when user answers No to "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible?", tag toilets=unknown instead in case no toilets=* or toilets:*=yes was tagged before. As you say, we didn't ask user if there are any toilets there, so it is not OK for us to tag toilets=yes when user never indicated that it is the case.
• if users answers No, open a followup question asking "Are there non-wheelchair toilets there?" and mark toilets=yes or =no accordingly (kind of like we ask subquestion in recycling quest for any plastic)
• ask toilet question first on cafe/restaurants (possibly spammy in some countries?), and only ask "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible?" if it already has toilets=yes (original suggestion of this issue)
• some other solution which will not have high possibility of wrong taggings

[matkoniecz]

Maybe

Is there toilet at this place and it is wheelchair accessible?

would work?

[andrewharvey]

Perhaps that "There is no toilet there" could be promoted to regular answer instead of being behind Uhh... in "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible" quest?

Yeah I thought about that, but there's not much space left.

Hm, that is indeed confusing and might lead to a lot of wrong answers in case toilets=* is not already tagged.

Yeah it caught me out.

As noted in related ticket, we do. It is just not being asked on cafes for the reasons specified there (e.g. spammy in many countries, no dedicated toilet-mappers). 🤷

I just checked the data in my city (Sydney), according to overpass we have 15 amenity=cafe and toilets=no and 27 amenity=cafe and toilets=yes (36% no, 64% yes). Based on those initial numbers I wouldn't call it spammy, but I realise it varies by region, and there's probably a bias towards tagging the less common value (so no would be tagged more and yes would be more often left untagged).

amenity=fast_food has 12 yes and 5 no.
amenity=restaurant has 25 yes and 7 no.

Promoting that "There is no toilet there" answer to regular answer would:

make the "wheelchair toilets" quest less confusing when asked on places without any toilets
avoid the (probably common) mistagging of toilets=yes instead of toilets=no in cases when user answers that there are no wheelchair-accessible toilets
make the "wheelchair toilets" quest double as the "Are there toilets here" quest, but without any of the issues mentioned in the linked ticket

If we can fit that in the UI without it being hidden, I agree that would help address the main issues.

But do you agree that "Is the toilet at this place wheelchair accessible?" question is confusing in situations when there are no toilets at all? I'm afraid that many users won't find Uh... menu (See e.g. #5974) and thus will select most matching answer No, resulting in incorrect tagging.

Currently it is a loaded question, and that should be avoided IMHO.

Exactly. And I'd be happy with any of your suggestions you've listed.

[mnalis]

Maybe "Is there toilet at this place and it is wheelchair accessible?" would work?

I don't think so... It is two questions grouped in one sentence: and while yes is clear (it can probably be assumed to mean that both answers are yes), no answer would still extra clarification in order to be able to tag anything: i.e. did user clicking no meant "no, there are no toilets at this place" or "no, they are not wheelchair accessible"?

[westnordost]

As you say, we didn't ask user if there are any toilets there, so it is not OK for us to tag toilets=yes when user never indicated that it is the case.

Of course it is, because the existence of toilets for wheelchair users implies the existence of toilets.

I just checked the data in my city (Sydney), according to overpass we have

There are 2679 amenity=cafe tagged in Sydney. So the complete statistic is:

• 0.5% have toilets
• 1% have no toilets
• for 98.5%, it is unknown.

In other words, the data is much too thin to base any assumption on.

But anyway, I am not opposed to creating a quest that asks for toilet availability limited to countries where there is a reasonable chance that they will not have a toilet, i.e. not be spammy. E.g. in Germany, it is mandated by law that places where you can sit down to eat and drink (indoor_seating=yes or outdoor_seating=yes), there must be a toilet for customers. But this requires research by whoever is interested in such a quest - a quest that asks for toilet availability on restaurants, cafés etc. may only be enabled for countries where not only this is not mandated by law, but also there is a reasonable chance that they don't have a toilet.

Such a quest would then have higher priority than the wheelchair toilet quest, and then the issue you encountered doesn't exist anymore.

[westnordost]

As you say, we didn't ask user if there are any toilets there, so it is not OK for us to tag toilets=yes when user never indicated that it is the case.

Of course it is, because the existence of toilets for wheelchair users implies the existence of toilets.

Oh, but maybe you meant that if the user answers "no", that this doesn't imply that there are toilets? For that, I'd agree.

[andrewharvey]

Oh, but maybe you meant that if the user answers "no", that this doesn't imply that there are toilets? For that, I'd agree.

Yes and that's the issue I was reporting here. Thanks for fixing it, it would be more correct for this ticket to me marked as "completed" and not "not planned" but doesn't matter!