Surely you could always refine tagging according to your needs (like with dog:species=Rottweiler). Although, I think the exact species of canines could change much more often due to replacement and/or moving. You probably also need to be an expert on the topic to tell apart hundreds of purebred types and their voices, and then handle all the impure ones as well.
You could also consider mapping their count, because that is pretty easy to tell (1-3). Anyway, I probably wouldn't overload the audible*=* scheme with this. It seems like many are interested in this. Marking it may involve hazard=dog, surveillance:type=guarddog, guard:type=dog or guard_dog=yes. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/hazard=dog#overview https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surveillance%3Atype=guarddog https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/guard%3Atype=dog https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guard_dog#values Funny: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/guard_dog%3Anoisy#values What about guard_dog=invisible? So my question is still of a mapping ethics nature: would we be doing any harm if we mapped whether a given private home has visible or audible guard animals? (Sirens and other security measures aren't that interesting from an ear-mapping perspective) On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 12:32 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 01:10, bkil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "hearing a dog" could be one of them. > > > But aren't you then going to need to differentiate the sounds? > > # 18 has a Chihuahua (yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap) while # 23 has a > Rottweiler (WOOF) > > Thanks > > Graeme > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
