[Tagging] dog=yes for drinking water

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21 Jul 2022, at 13:55, Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:
> 
> 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.


there are some distinctions that I would like to make related to animal drinking. First, “dog” is very generic and there is much more variation (size specifically) as with humans for example. If the bowl/trough is at a certain height, small and tiny dogs cannot drink.
Secondly, dogs can also drink from flowing water, but then they tend to touch the tap with their mouth (if in reach), what is not well perceived by many citizens. In such cases, is it dog=yes?

I believe dog=yes is not clear about this, if we described the features that make the fountain usable for dogs it would be better.
 

> 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.


I wouldn’t be too sure. If you can fill a bowl and give it do your dog, I would not consider it suitable for dog=yes, that would rather be a “no” IMHO if access of the dog to the fountain water is not possible 

Cheers Martin