[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - dog toilets
rene.guillot at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 12:19:40 UTC 2017
This discussion has caused me to think for a while about the proposal
* "potty_area" and "petty_relief_area" almost immediately dropped from my
list: "potty" indeed sounds a bit too eufemistic (and a bit too much with a
British accent for my own personal feeling), and "relief area" indeed might
cause non-natives to associate this with something else. The cons mentioned
on the Feature Proposal wiki describe this very well, and I agree
* Down to "pet/dog_toilet": At least in the country where I now live (The
Netherlands), this designated area is 100% for dogs. This is also confirmed
by the traffic sign in front of these areas, always including the picture
of a dog. I have never seen a case where other pets would need to use this
area. A toilet for pets other than dogs (like cats) would only be a movable
plastic box with a single entry port: something that people purchase as
private property and put it in their house or garden. It would not be
something that appears in public spaces. So I would drop "pet_toilet" as
well based on this.
Finally, looking at the cons of "dog_toilet": I don't think we would need
other toilet types for pets other than dogs. True, such toilets do exist in
reality, but this would be a private property, by definition unsuitable for
mapping in OSM. As well, I don't agree with the definition of a toilet
being something only "to sit down on". There are countries where a toilet
is nothing more than a hole in the ground, and you would deficate by
sitting down without touching it at all (squatting). And basically, a dog
deficating, is basically squatting!
Cut a long story short: IMHO I would vote for "dog_toilet".
Cheers, Rene Tran-Guillot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging