<html dir="ltr"><head></head><body style="text-align:left; direction:ltr;" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#2e3436" link="#1b6acb" vlink="#2e3436"><div>Due to your feedback I will cancel the proposal. AGAIN: What you say is 100% correct. This proposal's purpose was just to simplify what seems unclear to many (not all) mappers.</div><div><br></div><div>But keep you eyes on the following unsolved scenario:</div><div>---</div><div>How should the following scenario be tagged:</div><div>Playground <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320398422">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320398422</a> just has one equipment (sandpit) and this equipment (sandpit) fills up the whole area of the playground. The tagging used here is as follow:</div><div>(access=yes) reluctant for our purpose</div><div>leisure=playground</div><div>playground=sandpit</div><div><br></div><div>Helpful resources:</div><div><a href="https://wiki.osm.org/Key:playground:">https://wiki.osm.org/Key:playground:</a><br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.osm.org/Key:playground:">https://wiki.osm.org/Key:playground</a></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>Summary about what you said about this case:</div><div><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;">> Re: > This would allow to map playgrounds and their equipment in</span><br style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;"><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;">situations where a playground just has one equipment and this</span><br style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;"><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;">equipment fills up the whole area of the playground.</span><br style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;"><br style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;"><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;">> Mappers can tag "leisure=playground" + "playground=structure" on the</span><br style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;"><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;">same node or area in this case, right?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: monospace; white-space: normal;">My answer: > </span><span style="font-family: monospace;">The Wikipage for "Key:playground" says the following: "It should be</span></div><span style="font-family: monospace;">tagged to separate objects within the area of a playground". An</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">exception is given with "Only when the position of the individual</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">objects cannot be mapped yet" at the really end of the page. But for</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">such cases where we cannot map playground equipment as an extra object</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">we have the Key:playground:* .</span><div><font face="monospace"><br></font></div><div><font face="monospace">> </font><span style="font-family: monospace;">Well the equipment in this case is playground=sandpit.</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">As the outline of the sandpit is identical with the outline of the leisure=playground, why would</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">this be wrong?</span></div><div><font face="monospace"><br></font></div><div><font face="monospace">My answer: </font><span style="font-family: monospace;">Theoretically you need to create an object for the playground itself</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">and another object for the playground equipment. Both then will share</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">the same geometries (outline). In practical meaning you normally won't</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">map it this way because it is idiotic. My proposal also reflects that</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">and provides a way to map such cases without having to do it the</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><span style="font-family: monospace;">theoretical way.</span><br style="font-family: monospace;"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>We should clarify how to handle such cases in the wiki</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram</div><div>-----Original Message-----</div><div><b>From</b>: Sören Reinecke via Tagging <<a href="mailto:%3d%3fISO-8859-1%3fQ%3fS%3dF6ren%3f%3d%20Reinecke%20via%20Tagging%20%3ctagging@openstreetmap.org%3e">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>></div><div><b>Reply-To</b>: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <<a href="mailto:%22Tag%20discussion,%20strategy%20and%20related%20tools%22%20%3ctagging@openstreetmap.org%3e">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>></div><div><b>To</b>: <a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a></div><div><b>Cc</b>: Sören Reinecke <<a href="mailto:%3d%3fISO-8859-1%3fQ%3fS%3dF6ren%3f%3d%20Reinecke%20%3ctilmanreinecke@yahoo.de%3e">tilmanreinecke@yahoo.de</a>></div><div><b>Subject</b>: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Unifying playground equipment tagging)</div><div><b>Date</b>: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:43:59 +0200</div><div><br></div><pre>Hey,</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>a new RFC for </pre><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unifying-playground-equipment-tagging"><pre>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Unifying-playground-equipment-tagging</pre></a><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre>Purpose:</pre><pre>Simplified tagging of playground equipment on the playground itself or</pre><pre>as separate object. Both schemes already exist and I want to combine</pre><pre>them to help to decrease tagging errors.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>Proposal:</pre><pre>I propose the key playground to be deprecated and the use of key</pre><pre>playground:* instead. That would mean that on both playground and</pre><pre>playground equipment objects in OSM the key playground:* applies. This</pre><pre>then would also allow to map playgrounds and their equipment in</pre><pre>situations where a playground just has one equipment and this equipment</pre><pre>fills up the whole area of the playground.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><pre>What I feel:</pre><pre>I know many of you do not want developers to speak about how you should</pre><pre>do things. But I think a dialogue is necessary and also good for us all</pre><pre>and we can learn from each other: Mappers know the philosophy of OSM,</pre><pre>the mapping, tagging and the QA, they know what to achieve how.</pre><pre>Developers know the philosophy of orthogonality and nornmalisation of</pre><pre>things and can help mappers to make OSM more useful.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre>I am the developer of Babykarte. Babykarte follows what I want to</pre><pre>propose for a quite long time already with some extra specifications</pre><pre>which enables it to be quite flexible in interpreting the tagging. This</pre><pre>makes Babykarte a really good interpreter of the tagging of playground</pre><pre>equipment. This is necessary to do for us developers (we would be happy</pre><pre>if all mappers would stick to the specs) because some mappers decided</pre><pre>not to read the wiki carefully or not at all but instead to actually</pre><pre>map without knowing how. So developers always need to do some</pre><pre>interpreting and thinking of all the possibilities people do not map in</pre><pre>accordance with the spec. This makes us to create our own spec that</pre><pre>builds on the official one because people aren't following the</pre><pre>community's specs.</pre><pre><br></pre><pre><br></pre><div><br></div></div></body></html>