[Tagging] min_age vs. minage

[Florian Schäfer]

Am 22.07.2014 18:58, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> 2014-07-22 18:31 GMT+02:00 Никита <acroq3 at gmail.com
> <mailto:acroq3 at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hello everyone! Target minage (age_group) should be different from
>     legal minage (current tag min_age).
>
>
>
> generally agree (there might be exceptions etc., and it really is not
> a strictly legal restriction but more kind of a guideline in the cases
> I know of). Still as mentioned before, for schools and kindergartens
> there is ISCED level as a tag for an international standard.
But ISCED doesn't define an age. It just says "this is a kindergarten",
but not: "this kindergarten admits children who are <insert an age> or
older" for example. In my opinion there should be some tag (let it be
age_group, or min_age:usage or something else).

This was exactly what I meant in my initial mail, where I invented
min_age:usage and min_age:admission for this purpose.

A casino or betting office might have legal restrictions, which prevent
underage people from entering. But a school, kindergarten or playground
normally has not, otherwise e.g. parents would be locked out of these
places.

Normally you can decide, if it's a legal restriction by looking at the
type of amenity (playground => guidline, casino => legal), but I could
imagine, there are edge cases (maybe adventure-playground with legal
restrictions for people under some age, because it's too dangerous).

But overall I'm currently quite happy with the non-differentiating solution.

Cheers,
Florian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140722/d82aaa12/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 884 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140722/d82aaa12/attachment.pgp>