Talk:Tag:amenity=watering place

Hi!
I suspect that the animals do not drink water which human would not be able to drink. After drinking contaminated water, they suffer the same as people. Maybe it would be better amenity=drinking_water+watering_place=yes/no or amenity=fountain+watering_place=yes/no ect:. or alone watering_place=yes/no

watering_place=no if it is forbidden to watering animals.
Cz ja 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Natural water bodies?

It's problematic to include all "natural bodies of water [with] water quality suitable" for, and easy access for, animals.

The definition currently includes "all flowing water that is not obviously polluted" at places where the banks are low. - this suggests that most streams in the world could be tagged with amenity=watering_place at many of their nodes?

If this tag is going to be verifiable and useful, it should be limited to specific places like man-made features and natural springs, but the definition should not fit most waterways or the tag won't be specific enough to be helpful.

Fords don't really need to be included; it's obvious that a ford is a place where you can get access to river or stream water, so adding amenity=watering_place would only add the information that another mapper thought the water was "not obviously polluted", which seems a rather low standard. Since most serious water pollution issues are caused by invisible bacteria, viruses and toxins, "not-visibly-polluted" water is not a very helpful category --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

trough ?

The term watering place sounds actually strange in my ears - if it really is designed for use with animals wouldn't trough fit much better ?? What kind of other watering places could this term be used with ? Watering my garden comes to my mind when reading watering place ... ;) --katpatuka (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)