Proposal talk:Dog off-leash area

Would this include very small fenced-off areas (e.g. 3 x 4 meters) where owners can send their dogs for a "poop"? --Head 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Better dogs=yes

I think a meadow is still a meadow, and access:dogs=yes is only an additional information, that can be applied to anything. You can add fenced=yes/no aswell. --Lulu-Ann 12:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors who have used this proposed feature

• Node 449520042 --Ceyockey 05:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a definite use for this, lots of these around Auckland city, I will support it and vote yes. Minor point - Maybe we should change the 'bags' key to 'waste_bags' to be less ambiguous? Myfanwy 18:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In UK there are none of these; however a lot of areas are / aren't really suitable for dogs, & some are explicitly 'no dogs'. I would see a tag of 'dog_friendly=[yes|no|assistance|unknown] as being of use, this could apply equally to pubs*, shops, footpaths, or parks & other areas if this information was clear. Perhaps dogs=yes would be clearer as 'friendly' is a bit vague & woolly.

• Yes, some pubs let dogs sit under the table for dinner, & even put out water bowls & bring biscuits. Others don't. --DrMark 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In the Netherlands we have the same situation: fenced (safe) area's which are meant for dogs (and their owners :) to socialize and play but also 'no dogs allowed' signs on some footpaths. As I am working on tagging long distance footpaths, a general tag dogs=[yes|no..] seems a good idea. By the way, whatever happened to the vote ? --meFrans

There are plenty of these in New York (usually one in any park), and we call the "dog runs". Here, there are sometimes separate runs for small dogs and big dogs, so a 'dog_size' tag could be of use. --Ebrelsford 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be useful also in Finland. There are lots of designated, fenced dog parks in cities. Pfr 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In Finland many cities (Helsinki, Espoo to name a few) list these in their web sites and provide furhter information. I definitely support this tag and consider it necessary. Peppah 10:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate scope/naming?

At least in my area of the US there are "off-leash" areas that are not fenced parks/dog-runs, but also designated portions of recreational trails and beaches. At the least I think this might be broadened to apply to ways/routes to allow for the trails. Davetoo 04:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

• I think I've tagged a few of these in Brisbane as leisure=canine_park but I'm happy to change to dog_park if that is the consensus. DavidDean 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've seen some of these around here, so will support a 'leisure=dog_park' tag. I don't care about the bags, etc. Robx 12:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• There are several of these around San Diego so I would support this. --Elsaturnino 03:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Surprised this wasn't on the standard tags page. Searched and found this. Must be reasonably uncommon outside a few areas as I'm the 3rd identified Brisbanite to contribute to the proposal. Just as parents would find significant unique value in OSM providing playground maps, dog owners would find this invaluable. Unfortunately, this is the sort of information our elected administrations don't share in any detail, generally. Hubne 12:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• A good idea Srmixter 08:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• This is a great idea, hope it gets approved. How about placing nodes with amenity=waste_basket instead of your waste_disposal, and amenity=drinking_water instead of your water? -- Bron 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)