[Tagging] Pets allowed

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

We should strive for least specific tagging restrictions necessary to
> describe what we want.
> pet=no (generally no animals allowed)
> dog=yes (but dogs are)
> bird=yes (birds as well)
> parrot=no (but parrots not)
> etc.
>
> For allowances it is more difficult (as the alligator example shows,
> pet=yes would likely be too permissive).
>

I think we should start from an implicit pet=no.  Simply because pet=yes
includes my pet
elephant, your pet boa constrictor and his pet lion and so we're usually
going to have
pet=no with an exception list.  So we might as well say that pet=no is
implicitly assumed
if an exception list is present.  Or pet=no is the default unless
explicitly over-ridden by
either pet=yes or an exception list.  And if it's the default assumption if
there is no
exception list or pet=yes then there no reason to tag it explicitly (you
can if you want, but it's
not necessary).

I also think pet=yes ought not be used and we need something like
pet=check_with_operator,
except that is ugly.  I can't think of a better value, though.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190309/417c2ea7/attachment.html>