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 <sophietheopos...@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, <p...@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 > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
