Selling products for pets, or selling pets themselves is different and require very different infrastructures for live pet safety:
- I suggest keeping this tag "shop=pet" only for shops that really sell live pets (along with attributes "vending:food:pet=yes", "vending:accessories:pet=yes" for animal shelters or toys or similar, "vending:chemistry:pet=yes" for veterinary chemistry products including ani-pest products, "vending:hygiene:pet=yes" for animal hygienic products, "vending:care:pet=yes" if there's some well-being care practiced on animals, and other similar "vending:*" keys, only respecialized for pets rather than humans by default).
- For those that only sell products for pets, it should be "shop=pet_products" (along with the same attributes).
- Those attributes above will also be commonly found on "amenity=veterinary", or for more general stores selling prodcuts for humans (if they also sell pets, they can set "vending:pets=yes", see amenity=vending_machine whose "vending:*" subkeys could take most values currently used for the shop=* key).
The alternative would be to use the current tag, but with "vending:pets=no" (expecting that "shop=pet" is really selling pets, i.e. vending:pets=yes implicitly).
Note also that the term "pet" is a bit too restrictive where it should be just "animal". Not all animals are used as pets at home, they may be purchased for agriculture/gardening, or sport, and living freely outdoor, or used to feed other pets/animals already owned by customers (the animals sold in these shops should be live, otherwise they are just "food" for pets/animals)...
Also "pets" or even "animals" should be replaced by more precise animals if needed (such as "dogs", "pigs", "cats", "birds", "horses", "fishes", "reptilians", "insects"/"bees", "spiders", "worms"...).
I suggest not using this tag "shop=pet" for shops that sell "Animal feed" ("Комбикорм" at russian). But using "shop=agrarian" - shop focused on selling agrarian products, like seeds, agricultural machinery, animal feed, etc.
14 px is the original size. We decided to show double the size here. Some icons have fine details that are easier to recognize. That seemed to be accepted by everyone today. Why should this be changed now? Has that been decided somewhere? --geozeisig (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Multiple opinions have already reverted to use the original size. Almost all pages are using the 14px icon size and it is fine to see here (if it was not, it would not be fine as well on actual maps that have rich backgrounds, but here on a blacnk page there's absolutely no problem). The fine details you would like will not be visible on any map if you need to double the size. The icon MUST then be perfectly readable on the wiki in its original size, if not, then the icon itself is ill-designed and not suitable and should not be used at all. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)