[Tagging] Pets allowed

Warin 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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190308/8c0cb061/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list