[Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 11:30:14 UTC 2014


2014-12-19 12:12 GMT+01:00 Никита <acroq3 at gmail.com>:
>
> IMO, kids_area=* is prefered when you have bigger feature:
>
> name=Joe pub
> amenity=pub
> kids_area=yes
> kids_area:fee=no
>
> or explicitly using:
> amenity=kids_area
> fee=no
> operator=Joe pub
> opening_hours=10-20
>


I think this tagging is generally OK, but I am not sure when a standalone
feature is a playground and when it is a kids' area.
We should put the focus on defining criteria for distinguishing these two.
IMHO the current definition of leisure=playground is flawed [1][2] because
it says they were "commonly small outdoor areas", therefor implicitly
stating that they might also be indoor areas and maybe "big". "small" and
"big" are quite useless attributes because you don't know about the scale
or what to compare it to.

IMHO we should either require leisure=playground to be outdoor only (and
kids' areas as an independent feature to be always at least partly indoor)
or make kids' area a feature that is always provided by another feature and
cannot stand alone, otherwise there would be useless overlap. We should
also explicitly state in playground that it is only about stand-alone
features and not for playing areas provided by shops or similar.

The current playground definition already includes places with surveillance
and which require to pay a fee (suggested keys surveillance and fee).

cheers,
Martin

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dplayground
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dplayground#Better_definition
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141219/20f92a46/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list