Talk:Proposed features/Key:Dog

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pubs/Restaurants and similar

Could this key be added to pubs as well? Some pubs allow dogs to enter but others don't. I think adding a tag like this to pubs will be useful.

This can also apply to other places such as hotels, B&Bs, camp sites, etc. (had been added by User:Kaedroho 15 October 2012, --Rennhenn)

I agree with this. I just came from the OpenGastroMap where I did not find any "dog allowed" or similar. Under the Tag:amenity=restaurant I did not find anything either. Similar for hotel. So I will vote for a key "dog" if voting is possible and promote its usage. --Rennhenn 11:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree too - I came to this page specifically looking for such a tag. I've made some minor edits to the page to make it clear that the tag could be used in this way. I hope everyone is happy with this - if not feel free to revert my edits. Rostranimin (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I am unconvinced. I think access:dog=yes is sufficient for the pub, because you are travelling/visiting with a dog, or perhaps you are tagging this for future dog users of OSM. Consider what dog=* tags to use if the pub prohibits dogs in the evening? What if the pub requires you to bring a dog? And their restaurant serves food to dogs? Only dogs. Now say there's a connecting tunnel designated/sized for dogs only (no humans) to a path where owners must at minimum carry a leash for each dog? I can't see dog=* handling this and then someone asks about their domesticated leopard. Perhaps these things are better described by treating dogs as generic physical animals and structurally extending human behaviour tags like leisure=* and Conditional restrictions. Dle0 (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Some restaurants would allow a dogs to be present in the outdoor seating (outdoor_seating=yes), but might not allow dogs indoors. In that case, perhaps outdoor_seating=yes with dog=yes with dog:indoor=no. Still, that would only imply that dogs are allowed outside. -- Micahcochran (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


I think a better proposal could be:


In this way the same model could be used for any kind of pet.--Stemby (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We should accept this tag ASAP in any form first. Then we can replace all tags dog=*->pet:dog=* using simplest mechanic edit. We have 3000 dog=* tags, yet dog proposal not accepted in any form. Xxzme (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Not all dogs are pets (see Guide dogs below). Perhaps animal:dog? Actually, I just like dog by itself. Why should horse=* have all the fun? Dle0 (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


I think this could be useful if applied to dog-friendly malls and other places that are not parks or outdoors. I agree with the proposal as is. Pizzaiolo (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "clean" necessary?

I can't imagine any case where dogs are allowed and you are not expected to clean after it. I would support the introduction of the key, though.

I expect using it reflects the existence of a sign. Dle0 (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


There's a dog park near me that is divided into two separate sections: one section is for small dogs and puppies. I plan to use dog=small for that. Is there a better tag? Dle0 (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Guide dogs?

This key would be very useful. As well as dog=yes, some shops may use dogs=guide_only for the blind.

It seems to me that for a shop (or place) with the sign "No dogs allowed. Guide dogs excepted" you could use access:dog=no and access:guide_dog=yes. If local law requires access for service animals, then the latter tag would be superfluous and I'd consider omitting it. This is because the information is relevant to a visitor. Compare this with the situation of a pet shop that unusually refuses to sell dogs; I would tag that dog=no since the dog-ness is an inherent property of the place and not related just to who can visit. Dle0 (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Assistance dogs

There are a range of assistance dogs that are not guide dogs but need to accompany their owner into a shop, office, etc. These include dogs for epilepsy, mobility impairment, diabetes, PTSD, dementia, allergies, and many more disabilities. I would therefore like to propose to make the tag choice dog=yes and alternative dogs=assistance dog_only. We are planning to launch a large camapaign to improve access rights for people who increase their mobility with an assistance dog in Germany. Goal is to tag 150.000 places by end of the year. So, for this reason it would be very valuable to be able to differentiate between dog friendly in general and assistance dog friendly in particular. I am not overly familiar with the Wiki format or where to go from here to get these tags included. Any help is much appreciated!! User:rosiewrose (User talk:rosiewrosetalk) 10:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Mixed value types

dog=yes/no/designated are access tags, which look fine this way. However clean and leashed are not access tags. A way or area can be dog=yes/no/designated + leashed + clean. Using semicolons should be avoided. I suggest to use other tags for leashed and clean. --Klumbumbus (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the logic should be te same as for guide dogs. So : access:dog=no and acces:dog:leashed=yes for example. --Al-Hun (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

More types/values required


In some areas permits are required to allow a dog to be taken. E.g. Warin61 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


In some areas a licence must be obtained to keep a dog Warin61 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There may be more types/values too

Leave * at the end to allow mappers to add values as they come across them. Warin61 (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)