[Tagging] Pets allowed

seirra blake sophietheopossum at yandex.com
Fri Mar 8 11:00:35 UTC 2019


then I guess it might have to be pets? it isn't necessarily ideal, but 
it is a lot more specific than nothing at all. from what has been said 
though, it looks like pet=yes/pet=no may be more appropriate as species 
are already specified in the singular form (as well as most other access 
tags I can think of). it may be worth adding some potentially relevant 
species tags and the more generic pet tag to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access in case it's relevant to 
someone again in the future. I'm guessing you probably need to make a 
proposal and cast voting for it first though

On 3/7/19 10:27 PM, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> Unfortunately dataset I'm manually importing has a boolean "pets" field.
> I guess if go for "dogs" it will be 9/10 right, while a generic "pets" 
> 99/100 (considering the alligator anomaly :-) The latter has less 
> taginfo popularity, but better fits source data.
>
> Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake <sophietheopossum at yandex.com 
> <mailto:sophietheopossum at yandex.com>> ha scritto:
>
>     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
>
>     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.
>
>     On 3/7/19 12:17 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>>     On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05, <phil at trigpoint.me.uk
>>     <mailto:phil at trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>         Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet
>>         dogs, but are less likely  to accept cats and extremely
>>         unlikely to my pet alligator (no I don't really own one).
>>
>>
>>     Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number
>>     (only one; a maximum of two; etc.)
>>     Yes, some do accept cats, and there are many cat owners who would
>>     love to be able to take their
>>     cat on holiday with them.  So it would be nice if we had
>>     something a little more flexible than
>>     dog=yes/no.
>>
>>         Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered
>>         assistance dogs are covered by the law of the country, in the
>>         UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not allowed to refuse assistance
>>         dogs. I assume the same is true throughout the EU.
>>
>>
>>     I believe that, in the UK, NO business can refuse assistance dogs
>>     (but I could be wrong).  It's also
>>     the case in the UK that non-assistance dogs are NOT legally
>>     prohibited from pubs and
>>     restaurants but only from food preparation areas: it's the
>>     owner's decision as to whether or not
>>     dogs are allowed where food is served and sold. See
>>     https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/be-dog-friendly/
>>
>>     Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign
>>     somewhere saying that dogs
>>     are allowed.
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Paul
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190308/8ca2822d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list