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)

I have never before considered a place designed for my dog (or some sheep or cow) to drink from would be good for me too. And come to think of it, that's for good reasons. The water cows or dogs drink is definitely not always fit for humans. Joost schouppe (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It really depends on the area. Some places have been designed to provide drinking water for animals but with humans in mind. (Usually, people can drink near the tap / pipe from where the water flows into a trough (this is typically for places designed to make cattle drink). In settlements, there are often/ocassionally dual use drinking fountains, designed so that people and dogs can drink (the same water). I don't know people owning a dog who would like to have it drink where it is clear that they shouldn't drink it themselves. --­­Dieterdreist (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2025 (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)

I am sometimes using trough=* as property with fountains who provide a trough for animals to drink. A watering place can have a trough, but it does not, it is a more generic tag and could be any place where animals can drink, it doesn't even have to be "designed for", it could also be natural. --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)