Hello Joost, This discussion has caused me to think for a while about the proposal options!
* "potty_area" and "petty_relief_area" almost immediately dropped from my list: "potty" indeed sounds a bit too eufemistic (and a bit too much with a British accent for my own personal feeling), and "relief area" indeed might cause non-natives to associate this with something else. The cons mentioned on the Feature Proposal wiki describe this very well, and I agree completely. * Down to "pet/dog_toilet": At least in the country where I now live (The Netherlands), this designated area is 100% for dogs. This is also confirmed by the traffic sign in front of these areas, always including the picture of a dog. I have never seen a case where other pets would need to use this area. A toilet for pets other than dogs (like cats) would only be a movable plastic box with a single entry port: something that people purchase as private property and put it in their house or garden. It would not be something that appears in public spaces. So I would drop "pet_toilet" as well based on this. Finally, looking at the cons of "dog_toilet": I don't think we would need other toilet types for pets other than dogs. True, such toilets do exist in reality, but this would be a private property, by definition unsuitable for mapping in OSM. As well, I don't agree with the definition of a toilet being something only "to sit down on". There are countries where a toilet is nothing more than a hole in the ground, and you would deficate by sitting down without touching it at all (squatting). And basically, a dog deficating, is basically squatting! Cut a long story short: IMHO I would vote for "dog_toilet". Cheers, Rene Tran-Guillot
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
