[Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

moltonel 3x Combo moltonel at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 18:02:47 UTC 2014

On 19/12/2014, Никита <acroq3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> but of course you can map things more precisely.
> Exactly this was discussed.

I was only arguing for using "playground + subtags" instead of
"playground vs children_area" and noting that "playground=yes" could
be added to the main amenity instead of mapping the playground
explicitly (this would also work for children_area=yes as has been
suggested elsewhere).

Then you say this doesn't work for big amenities (airports), I repeat
that it is only an optional shortcut, and you say this is what was
being discussed. I wonder why you said it didn't work then ?

>> And I don't want to face the same quandary deciding between playground
> and children_area.
> I'm sorry for inconvenience, shall we remove several countries from OSM so
> you can easily use single tag you like to see? Cycleways? Motels? What tags
> should we remove?

Can't make anything of such an over-the-top comment.

>> adding a brand new tag is a much more heavy-weight approach than refining
> an existing and common tag.
> Good luck with downloading over 230K+ instances worldwide just to see what
> was mapped before in places you never visited
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=playground.

Why would anybody want to do that ? Nobody's arguing for a mass-retag.
All the currently-existing leisure=playground are fine (AFAIK).

Actually, since you bring up the subject, introducing an
amenity=children_area could potentially bring up the "we need to check
all existing playgrounds to see if they should rather be tagged as
children_area" discussion, which in itself is an argument against

> Please, clarify leisure=playground for us!
> Define one tags that will suite every single case mapped before for every
> single application at once! Make proposal about leisure=playground
> deprecation! It's easy!

Leisure=playground it is. I certainly don't want to deprecate it. In
my view, introducing amenity=children_area *is* deprecating some
current usecases of leisure=playground, which is unecessary. Let's try
to recap the usecases :

* Indoor/outdoor is already inherently mapped with building=*
* Size is also inherently mapped. Minor playgrounds inside a small
amenity can be tagged on the amenity itself.
* Fee, surveillance, opening_hours, max/min_age are standard tags
* The kind of activities found in the playground are a factor of
indoor/outdoor, fee, and surveillance.
* Specific activities can be tagged using playgroud=tv or (better)
* Wether parents/gardians can leave the kids or not is a factor of too
many things to be mappable. Let the parent decide.

Did I miss a usecase, an important distinction ? Is it one that
justifies adding a new tag, with the associated issues of definition
overlap and mapper/renderer/etc uptake ? Or are we just getting
confused and talking about different problems ?

More information about the Tagging mailing list