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
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
