[Tagging] Pets allowed

[seirra blake]

pet=permissive? although if the operator does straight out say 'pets 
allowed' without any further suggestion (be it images, small print or 
whatever) I guess it would be yes until proven otherwise or further 
explained/surveyed. if this does get put in an article it may be worth 
noting that it's preferable by far to avoid using pet=yes because few 
places actually allow any pet without restrictions. on a fun side note 
though, my friend has quite extensively confirmed that London tube is 
ferret=yes. there are some namespaces that may still be useful though, 
I'll give some examples: dog:leash_only to indicate if they need to be 
on a leash or can roam freely; useful for parks which in some areas are 
starting to impose leash only parks and ferret:carry_only to indicate if 
the pet needs to be in a carrier/other suitable vessel (be it a bag 
that's open/ventilated or an article of clothing or whatever) as whilst 
their pet ferret is fine in their hood, I imagine if it was roaming 
freely it may not get such a warm reception.

On 3/9/19 1:14 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190309/5ef32070/attachment.html>