[Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 16:40:49 UTC 2014

On 19/12/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I don't like to fuel this already long thread, but I just want to note
that I don't see a need for kid_area, as playgound (with associated
tags) can already describe all the usecases. Note that I'm a father of
two yound kids, and playgrounds are very important in my day to day

I agree that an outdoor park playground, a kid-friendly area in a
shop, and a purpose-built playground business are very different
beasts, but they still all fit within the "playground" domain by
adding playgound:FOO=yes, fee=*, surveillance=*, being located in a
building or not, etc. If it's just a minor service in a bigger
amenity, just tag the amenity with playground=yes.

As a father, I know pretty much all I need by seeing where the
playground is located and wether it requires a fee or not. The only
other things I need are opening times and website. Mapping individual
playground components is fun for the mapper, but fairly useless for
the parent (unless the thing is huge or your kid really *can't* enjoy
a playground without, say, a climing frame).

Whether you can leave your kids there for a while depends on so many
things (kid's age, surveillance type, parenting style...) that I feel
it's hopeless to try to tag it.

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

I plead guilty to recently adding these two suggested tags to the wiki.

More information about the Tagging mailing list