[Tagging] dog=yes for drinking water

[Stefan Tauner]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 12:22:32 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 21 Jul 2022, at 12:02, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:
> > I think dog=yes is perfectly fine because its meaning is quite obvious  
> 
> 
> as in “dogs may drink”, “is designed specifically for dogs to drink”, “it is not forbidden to dogs to drink”?

My sentence continued and explained why 1 and 3 do not make any sense...
 
> > (if you are aware of the existence of such amenities) and there is
> > no overlap with the legal meaning on other objects such as ways. Please
> > show me a single amenity=drinking_water where dogs are legally
> > forbidden to be given water from... ;)  
> 
> 
> be given water from (as in bring your own bowl) is very different from a feature that is designed to let dogs drink.

Of course, but you are missing the point: if dog=yes is interpreted in
a legal access-like way and only then this is relevant at all. But
there is no such interpretation in the real world, no law, no sign etc.
that forbids the access of dogs (or "their" bowls) exclusively to an
object that would be mapped as amenity=drinking_water. The POI might be
within some area where dogs are not allowed (e.g., a fenced playground)
but then the access is mapped on the surrounding area and not the POI.
Please proof me wrong and bring a counter example if you want to
further entertain that argument. I can think of at least theoretical
examples where water is very scarce and only humans but no animals are
allowed to be given water but we would need another tag for that as
listing all forbidden species would be quite tedious. ;)

-- 
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner