[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Extended playground equipment

[Alex]

 > "playground=ride / Is it supposed to include also coin operated ones 
that make noise/lights/movements?"

There is already "attraction=kiddie_ride" for them. This are different 
types of devices, which are also usually not part of playgrounds.


 > "playground=hammock / These are also placed independently from 
playgrounds. Maybe have single tag for both?"

Good idea – TagInfo knows 76x leisure=hammock, but I think we should use 
this tagging only outside of playgrounds (since hammocks on playgrounds 
are for a specific target group / accordingly sized / not for public use 
in the stricter sense). I added a reference to this tagging in the 
proposal: "For public hammocks in general that are not part of 
playgrounds resp. intended for this specific target group, there is 
leisure=hammock in use."


 > "playground=artwork / playground=steps / why not use regular step 
tagging?"

If an object is part of the playground design and provides a 
"play"/playground function, then it should also be identifiable and 
evaluable via the playground namespace. Otherwise, for example, the 
stairs of the path network on a playground could no longer be 
distinguished from those that are part of a structure (which makes data 
evaluations impossible for this devices/values).

"artwork" is certainly an edge case here, but this value refers 
primarily to (sometimes very small, discrete) decorative playground 
elements, most of which I would not wish to spam the tourism=artwork 
namespace. (The sample picture in the proposal is a very "significant" 
one compared to what else is out there.) Maybe they don't even fit the 
broader definition of "tourism=artwork" because of it's limited public 
usability ("A tag for public pieces of art; typically being staged in 
the physical public domain, usually outside and accessible to all." – 
see also hammock example)

What do you think?


Am 27.05.23 um 10:25 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging:
> playground=ride
>
> Is it supposed to include also coin operated ones that make noise/lights/movements?
>
> https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.054966,19.8545417,3a,15.3y,207.67h,84.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHED2kF0PByYJyi9CYVjXXw!2e0!5s20110801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
> caught one
>
> re: playground=hammock
>
> These are also placed independently from playgrounds. Maybe have single tag for both?
>
> re: playground=artwork
> why not just normal artwork tagging?
>
> "If it has a significant art relevance, consider also adding tourism=artwork. "
>
> Note that vast majority of tourism=artwork has no art relevance and definitely no
> significant art relevance
>
> re: playground=steps
> why not use regular step tagging?
>
> (the same goes for some other tags)
>
>
> May 27, 2023, 08:46 bysupaplex at riseup.net:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> anyone who maps playground equipment from time to time might be      familiar with the issue: The playground values from the wiki      represent only a small range of possible playground devices, for      many others you have to get creative, come up with your own tags      or dig through TagInfo to see how other mappers might have mapped      a device.
>>   
>>   As a group of mappers who regularly map playgrounds, we are      proposing more values to the list of documented playground      equipment to better map typical devices that had no documented      value before.
>>   
>>   >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Extended_playground_equipment
>>   
>>   Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>   Alex for the group of proposal authors
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20230527/942c0180/attachment.htm>