Talk:Proposed features/Dog off-leash area

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Formal start of Request for Comment on this proposal = 30 November 2009

Scope of proposal

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)

  • I think it would, yes. --Ceyockey 02:36, 1 August 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)

At least in Finland dogs can go most places (and when not: dogs=no), but only in these marked and fenced off leash areas they may run free and play with other dogs. Non dog owners wouldn't want to go there, even if they may. Alv 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
A dog park is not a meadow or a forest. It is a smallish, improved area, typically inside a regular park, built to contain off-leash dogs. access:dog=yes is insufficient since, as Alv says, leashed dogs are allowed access to the entire park, not just the dog park. More importantly, access:dog=yes doesn't capture that it is a man-made feature, more like a tennis court than a meadow. -- Bron 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Lulu-Ann, please add new discussion items when replying. If everyone just edits their comments, the discussion becomes unintelligible. [1] -- Bron 18:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a meadow is still a meadow, therefore a tag makes much more sense. I suggest access:dogs=leash/unleashed/no. That would work for practically any place on the map where dogs can go. These fenced in designated dog areas seem to exist in very few places on earth. I haven't seen one yet. I live in Germany. Ulis 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I live in Rome and i'm really interested in this tag for "Dog off-leash area". Is very usefull for dog-owners in Rome, because they can exercise their pets unrestrained ONLY in this "dog-areas". So the dog area must to be visible on the map, with a specific dog-icon. I disagree to use only dog=yes. I agree with Bron. Osmfaber 15:32, 09 November 2009 (UTC)
No, access:dogs=yes is not better, but something different! There are designated areas for off the leash dogs in different countries of the world. I know none in Germany but have used them in Denmark (Hundeskove [2]) and others have reported them in Australia, Italy and France. They are specially marked and constructed areas. They may intersect with other natural features (woods, meadows, rivers, pathes) like any other park. Thus a marking should be transparent or only along the border. For indicating that dogs are allowed in a normal park, or a pub or along a paths access:dogs=yes/no is fine. JND 10:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors who have used this proposed feature

Due to changes in Query-to-map this Template does not work anymore. You can use Template:Osm-query2. Please replace or delete this use of Osm-query template.


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)

When I go to a new area, I'd like to find the nearest dog park the same way I can find the nearest pub or ice rink. Hopefully the tagging will support this usage.

I will support it and vote yes. I'm really interested in a tag for "dog off-leash areas". When does the Vote start? I have found also this tag animal=dogarea but don't seems to be active/rendered

I support this usefull tag. I modified the "usefull combination" part on the wiki page, 'cause barrier=fence is newer and already rendered.

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)

I agree - I suspect access:dog=yes is more flexible and can be applied to other features, however, just to muddy the water a bit (and not meaning to hijack the original proposal), how might we go about tagging a track that is closed to dogs (or some other entity) during a proportion of the calendar - e.g. Taua Tapu Track, closed to dogs during lambing between September and December. Many beaches in Guernsey are similarly restricted. Do people use another value to indicate that access is not a simple yes/no, and instead perhaps season based? --Leigh 01:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant for the blindmap

Blind persons with a guide dog need information about places where the dog is allowed to drop excrements, expecially in urban areas. If this feature passes it will be added to the map for the blind. See OSM for the blind. --Lulu-Ann 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


  • 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)
  • This is a bad idea, since a meadow is still a meadow and a forest is still a forest. Dog access is a property that can be added to any object, also to leisure objects, and should not override it. Let's tag access:dog=yes and that's it. --Lulu-Ann 12:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This comment is in two places, replies above.
  • support The availability of an improved area for dog socialization and recreation is quite important to both travellers and residents in the United States. There is certainly a place for Lulu-Ann's meadow+dog_access; some public parks in the United States have areas that fit that description perfectly. A dog-park is another beast altogether, though. --Ceyockey 02:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • support I've seen many of these small fenced-off areas where dogs can go without leash, in France. Jrouquie 11:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • support This tag is very usefull for dog-owners. The dog-area must be visible on the map with a specific rendering. Please make this tag active, and rendered on Mapnik!
  • Definition — The definition currently reads "Designated, fenced-off area where dog-owners are permitted to exercise their pets unrestrained." I suggest this be re-worded as "Designated area, with or without a fenced boundary, where dog-owners are permitted to exercise their pets unrestrained." --Ceyockey 14:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Size parameter — Suggested new parameter 'dog_size': In the United States it is not uncommon for there to be two areas available adjacent to one another, one area for small dogs and one for large. This distinction should be accommodated in the Proposal, perhaps as dog_size=large/small. --Ceyockey 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


I think the icon is too similar to the veterinarian icon. --Lulu-Ann 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No. The icon for amenity=veterinary is this:

Try to add a node in josm using amenity=veterinary and you will see it. --Faber 19:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Collation of usage suggestions provided during voting

as of revision 393229 of 19 Dec 2009 --Ceyockey 14:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Original proposed usage

<tag k="leisure" v="dog_park"/>
<tag k="water" v="trough"/>
<tag k="water" v="tap"/>
<tag k="water" v="yes"/>
<tag k="water" v="no"/>
<tag k="bags" v="yes"/>
<tag k="bags" v="no"/>
<tag k="waste_disposal" v="yes"/>
<tag k="waste_disposal" v="no"/>

Alternatives to leisure=dog_park


Suggested alternatives:


Potential conflict with Key:water; cf. Water and Proposed features/water. Suggested alternatives:

waste disposal

Suggested alternatives: