[Tagging] Pets allowed
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
>> 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
>> Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign
>> somewhere saying that dogs
>> are allowed.
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging