Occasionally dog parks offer some kind of equipment for the dogs to play, something like a splashing pool or a sandpit where the dogs are allowd to dig holes as they like (not to be misinterpreted as dog toilet!). We discussed such a case recently in the german forum.
My suggestion is to map these installations according to the scheme we use for playgrounds, adding playground equipment with playground=*.
So forthe dog parks this would be dog_park=* with the values “sandpit” or “sandbox”, “pool” and the like.
If there are no objections, I would like to add this to the dog-park wiki page.
I do not think so. Please replace in my quoting from Key:playground - OpenStreetMap Wiki the term playground by dog_park These features are inside the area of the dog_park.
First of all, there are 8 =yes , and 1 =separate , for whether a facility has a pet park. There are 3 =beach (there was discussion about beaches as pet parks somewhere I forgot) and 1 =small_dog that should still be considered for what the =dog_park is. dog_park | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
Fundamentally, there are 2 issues:
playground= isn’t ideal. Eg bridge= has bridge:support= . Comparing the two, playgorund= is more easily understood as “playground equipment” or playing device, than dog_park= is for “dog park facilities” (?). Eg dog_park:equipment= would have been better.
Are there any needs for equipment for other animals elsewhere? Eg horses in riding center or stables, and dogs in obstacle courses or training centers, if the obstacles are fixed. Are there dedicated sand pits for horses? Pools for horse training?
Yes, this is usually the case. Check any key and you will find lots (often hundreds) of values with less then 10 uses attached to it which is a consequence of ATYL.
playground is ideal. a dog_park is a playground for dogs so I do not see any reason why we should not use the same tagging scheme for it.
I do not know. My issue is dog parks at the time being, nothing else.
which means that also playground=sandpit (used 21245 times) suggests that the whole playground is a sandpit? Should we change that to another key?
playground is ideal. a dog_park is a playground for dogs so I do not see any reason why we should not use the same tagging scheme for it.
I see a reason: playground is a tag that deals with playgrounds for human children, dogs are something quite different. A dog park is not a „playground for dogs“, it is a park where dogs can be unleashed.
Can’t these sandpits, pools etc. also be found outside dog_parks? In such cases, dog_park=sandpit, dog_park=pool … would be inappropriate tags for them, and other tags would be needed for the same kind of things depending on where they are located. Perhaps it would be better to use a different key such as dog_equipment=pool or animal_equipment=dog_pool?
(For horses we have horse walkers and horse jumps, some of tthem are in horse riding centres, some not.)
And in general, I think it is a bit premature to document tags on the normal wiki pages that haven’t been used yet or hardly used at all. Compare taginfo link above.
An alternative can easily be formulated for pet park equipment. Can’t for dog_park=yes , as it is using the standard pattern for whether something has a =dog_park .
I forgot about animal=@Hufkratzer , that’s less worse. It still has the problem of being mixed with actual animals. animal | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo (while almost all animal=yes are imported or added en masse around 2012) animal= is an obvious option for attraction=animal as well. amenity=animal_training has been suggested for animal=school . So that leaves =horse_walker , while =horse_jump is barrier= or there are more discussions about =steeplechase_jump vs unused horse_jump=steeplechase . https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier=horse_jump#Why_different_tags?
It is meant to extend the tagging of Tag:leisure=dog_park - OpenStreetMap Wiki, so I don’t see any problem to do that. I presume you overlooked this tagging (used more than 20000).
If something has got a dog park with dog_park=yes, this dog_park can be mapped completely as that.
Exactly, and what happens, when a bunch of dogs is allowed unleashed in a certain location? They start playing and sometimes fighting. Isn’t that what children do on a playground?
Sure you can find sandpits in other locations but then they are not designated for dogs. The same applies to splashing pools and other dog-park equipment. And again the same applies to sandpits on playgrounds which are designated for children. Would you like to compare that with a sandpit used for commercial production of sand or the like?
I did not think about adding a list of possible tags but just add the information, that any kind of dog_park equipment can be mapped according to the playground scheme with dog_park=*. I’d say this is a very simple and consistent approach - maybe too simple for some of us?
As I mentioned before, this topic is not about animal attractions, animal training, horse jumps and the like but simply about equipment exclusively installed in locations tagged as leisure=dog_park which are provided by communities as a kind of playground for dogs.
Sure you can find sandpits in other locations but then they are not designated for dogs.
The only sandpits designated for dogs that I have ever seen were unrelated to dog parks and intended as dog toilets. Technically, kids could play there as well, but it is uncommon
Exactly, and what happens, when a bunch of dogs is allowed unleashed in a certain location? They start playing and sometimes fighting. Isn’t that what children do on a playground?
by this logic, every park is a playground because children play there.
I agree. Even if it is difficult to change the tagging of playground equipment because we already have a lot of such objects tagged this way, this does not mean that we now have to reproduce the same problem with dog_park equipment. It is no problem to use another key than dog_park=… For things on a golf course (which you can see as a playground for golfers) they don’t use key golf_course=… but golf=…
Apparently there are things you have not seen yet:
Which problem are you talking about? There are som 200.000 playground=* tags and so far I have never heard anyone complaining about this kind of tagging which is a simple and effective way to tag this stuff.
So we should go for dog=sandpit and dog=pool etc. ?!?
absolutely, I didn’t mean to say that I question their existence, rather that these other sand pits exists as well, unrelated to dog parks, so that a different tagging is needed anyway, at least for these
the problem that the discussed tagging would break with the usual way our tagging is structured, A=B B=C where C is a specific kind of B.
For example what is the meaning of playground=yes, does it stand for “has a playground” or “is an unspecified kind of playground equipment”?
So an alternative would be dogpark:part=sandpit or so?
I don’t object to this. It is indeed more logical. If I can remember this discussion I might do it myself next time. It’s more typing work which I DO object to but let’s see what happens.
These features are inside the area of the dog_park.
