[Tagging] Proposal for more detail on leisure=playground

[Antony King]

Replies inline below...

On Thursday 25 Mar 2010 15:12:27 Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> On 25/03/2010 14:11, antony.king wrote:
-- snip--
> >  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AccessiblePlay
> >  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PlaygroundEquipment

> First, I've moved those pages to titles with spaces in -- MediaWiki
> allows you to have spaces in page titles.

Thanks - I think. Perhaps another time you could contact the author of the 
page first - I had some external links to those pages which I've had to change 
in a hurry. For my part I'll make sure future pages are spaced where 
appropriate.

> I'd recommend the next thing you should do is come up with as many
> concrete examples of these facilities

Noted. I've got about 20 known sites in mind; I know a lot of parents with an 
eye for such things so I could probably pop up with another couple of hundred 
given a month or so. I'm also in touch with manufacturers of play equipment 
and a few local councils who have in the past been helpful in identifying 
sites with adapted equipment.

> and add them to the DB. If you can work out how to tag accessible 
> playgrounds consistently and verifiably the chances are the rest of us will 
be able to follow your scheme.

hence asking the community (ies?) for advice on schemas at this stage - the 
'data collection' side of the project has taken off at a rate that has 
completely blind-sided us. I'd rather catch any glaring errors that I may have 
made as a novice at creating such things, rather than have to go over 4000 or 
so (at the last count) UK playgrounds and modify them a few months down the 
line. Could you define 'verifiably' in this context?

My intention is to have all types of equipment identified within each 
playground - an 'accessible' or rather, 'inclusive' playground would be noted 
as such if it had one or more pieces of equipment in it that were regarded as 
inclusive. That's really a decision for the renderer though - there does exist 
a specific overlay renderer for disabled use but I think showing two types of 
playground icon on the general map would be a reasonable thing to do once we 
have a proven set of facilities recorded in the database.

A concern I have is that different people have different ideas of what 
'inclusive' might mean - I've put photos of some of the items on the proposal 
page which should help. There is a general disabilities project which defines 
three main types of disability - blind, deaf and unable to walk. Most 
equipment marketed as 'inclusive' appears to be for the latter category.

> Trying to come up with a scheme based on supposition and guesses will be
> less usable.

Indeed. I can't see there being a lot of guesswork involved; I've got a fair 
idea of what is out there locally now - the OSM integration part of the 
project is relatively recent but this is something we have been working on 
quietly for quite some time now. My concern is at some stage there will be 
some people new to OSM who will have joined with the express intention of 
adding this data, and they will need a clear, unambiguous schema to work with.

Best regards,

Antony.