[Tagging] dog=yes for drinking water

[Jo]

dog=bring_your_own_drinking_recipient

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022, 16:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220721/aae45e4b/attachment.htm>