I never saw that in access before, but that actually makes a lot of
sense. conditionals are somewhat underutilised where I live so I always
forget about them, but that's a fair point
On 3/7/19 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:
On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:
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
Presently they are tagged as per access tagging.
motor_vehicle=yes/no
horse=yes/no
dog=yes/no
ferret=yes/no
parrot=yes/no
etc
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.
Where a quantity limit applies ? dog:1= yes @ per party ???
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
