Deimplicate poolside -> pool

Reason: A pool is not always visible when characters are otherwise obviously located poolside.

Examples: post #8920, post #16040, post #27496, post #239440, post #515620, post #556484, post #686026, post #718810, post #751422, post #777465, post #794806, post #912382, post #1047903, post #1272095 (and post #685161), post #1238532, post #1299321

Borderline cases (you can see the side/edge of the pool but not the water): post #134448, post #146389, post #188667, post #332079, post #860373, post #868399, post #1259851, post #1459980

Deleted examples (for completion): post #16034, post #697439, post #1236161

Depends on if we're tagging the area or the square/circle that contains water, really.

Well, poolside has no definition, but pool seems to indicate that we are tagging the body of water / container for it.

I propose the following definition for poolside:

"When a character is located near a pool, or a character is leaning up against the side of one or climbing in or out of one."

"The pool itself need not be visible if other visual cues indicate that's where the scene is located."

BCI Temp's distinction works for me.

Sweet. Can we get the implication undone, then?

Here are some more examples: post #1313496, post #281300 + post #324284, post #305239

More ambiguous cases: post #5332, post #1219790, post #263527

(Just putting these down in case I lose my note.)

Oh right, deleted implication.