Talk:Key:dog

Assistance Dogs

Since I could not find a specific value for tagging a place where only guide dogs for blind people are allowed, I went for it and tentatively tagged dog=guide. Thought of 'guide_only' but wasn't sure of possible combinations. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/217475661 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135069811

Also, I did not found anything else in access tags, too.

Hints or advice? Opinions? Thanks.

I think that in most countries assistance dogs (such as guide dogs) are exempt from a ban on dogs. It would probably be redundant to tag every park with dog=no with an exception for guide dogs, because that tends to be the default. I would turn it around: assume that assistance dogs are permitted when dog=no, and explicitly forbid them with guide_dog=no if necessary. JeroenHoek (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

dog=unleashed

The wiki page is unclear if dog=yes means unleased or not. Given we already have document dog=leashed to specify that dogs are allowed when on a leash, we should also have dog=unleashed to indicate dogs are allowed off leash. --Aharvey (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

dog=unleashed is used only 200 times. I'm not sure if that is often enough to warrant including it yet. Is it needed and was it ever documented somewhere? I have added some clarification about dog=yes not implying anything about the leash, and noted that leisure=dog_park does imply unleashed dogs are permitted. JeroenHoek (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's needed since dog=yes just says you can take your dog there but doesn't say if it must be on-leash or if it can be off-leash. The fact that it's used 200 times shows there is some demand for it. Thanks for the clarifications you just made to the main page, I think that's in accordance with how the tag is currently used. Agreed for leisure=dog_park it should implied unleashed, but not everything should be considered a dog park just because it allows off-leash, eg. a beach which allows off-leash still isn't a dog park in my opinion. --Aharvey (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've added it. It's not as common as dog=leashed, but it makes sense as its counterpart. JeroenHoek (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

trails: dog tag in lieu of leash

trinary field state is not enough. For a fee, Boulder offers annual dog tag for qualified dogs/guardians that pass certification, have rabies tag for Voice & Sight program off-leash trail access in lieu of leash. See Mapillary image of South Boulder Creek Trailhead signage. 4th state would be something like "leash or tag"

dog=designated

The tag dog=designated is currently the fourth most used value for this key (above dog=unleashed) but is not mentioned on this page - presumably to a relatively low usage count (247 uses as of today). However, I am trying to figure out what this actually means. Is this simply another value for dog=yes? Or is this for places where dogs are explicitly the main user, e.g. leisure=dog_park or dog beaches? Casey boy (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think for a path in leisure=dog_park one can tag it with dog=designated. maro21 18:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Legality and dog=yes or dog=permissive

The description currently says this tag describes "whether dogs are legally allowed in a certain area" (emphasis mine). This follows the access=* tagging scheme.

However, I suspect some (a lot?) of dog=yes tags simply mean that dogs are permitted, rather than being legally allowed (only ~half of dog=yes tags are used in combination with highway=* for example). Thus the "correct" access tag is possibly access=permissive - especially on private property. But dog=permissive is only used 100 times, according to taginfo. This is further complicated when access is permissive AND dogs must be leashed for example (dog=leashed doesn't say whether access is by law or a condition of access permission).

I wonder if we should remove the "legally" from "legally allowed"? Instead only use the "legal" status for transport modes. For example, make it clear that foot=permissive, dog=yes doesn't say dogs are legally allowed, rather, access is by permission but dogs are permitted. Casey boy (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What if someone owns the store and forbids entry with a dog? They then makes the law on the premises of their store, so I think "legally" fits here. The same with park regulations. maro21 18:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that works for "no". You're trespassing if you go against those conditions - which is normally against the law (though not necessarily a prosecutable offence). But my example was for "yes". That's why there's the access=permissive access tag. I'm just not sure that's the best way to go for dogs and, instead, removing the "legal" part might be the much easier path to go down. Casey boy (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Conditional access

We should probably note how to tag conditional access for dogs on this page too. I know many beaches, for example, only allow dogs during the off-season (winter months). It's my understanding it would be something like dog:conditional=yes @ (Oct-May) or, conversely, dog:conditional=no @ (Jun-Sep). There does appear to be some use of this. Casey boy (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sign with dog excrementing

I often encounter variations of a sign seemingly to forbid letting your dog poop. Sometimes on hiking trails, sometime on access=permissive private ways, sometimes on private greens next to public ways. [1]

It's not clear what it really means, as one can't really command most dogs not to poop. Any idea how to tag this? Maybe dog=no_excrements ? The closest in taginfo I have seen is "dog=clean", but it is used only 11 times, and it seems have a slightly different meaning.

It's generally not something you can really tag, because local laws regarding dogs tend to apply everywhere in the local jurisdiction (often a blanket ban on leaving excrement). Such signs tend to function as a reminder rather than a local exception, and their meaning will vary from 'Please remember to pick up after your dog' to 'Don't let your dog shit here!' — whatever whoever placed it meant by it. --JeroenHoek (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this probably wouldn't be the right key for that to fall under either (I'm not sure what would though). I was trying to think what might be a similar restriction for humans (other than no public defication which I assume is mostly a given), perhaps alcohol free zones? Not sure how they're tagged.

I would have thought dog=clean means that the dogs themselves must be clean (e.g., to go into a pub or something). Casey boy (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Change to de facto

I've changed the status of this key to de facto. I think it meets the criteria: well used, global usage, documented in several different languages, no competing tagging scheme, recommended on approved pages, and supported by iD (and maybe potlatch?). Casey boy (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)