[Tagging] Pets allowed
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 21:58:13 UTC 2019
On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:
> while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make
> more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related
> things under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:
> * pets=no | no matter what, no pets
> * pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other than specified
> examples such as...
> * pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dog
> does not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't think of
> one as being a pet.
> * pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed
Presently they are tagged as per access tagging.
> this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat is
> allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could be
> made more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my mind is
> blank, I haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the best approach
> to cover most situations). this may also be useful for things like
> water-bowls/treats for pets as mentioned elsewhere here; for example:
> my bank offers dog biscuits for dogs, the train station used to offer
> a water-bowl as well, but I haven't put much thought into seeing if
> it's there after the take over by LNER.
Where a quantity limit applies ? dog:1= yes @ per party ???
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging