On 19/12/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-12-19 12:12 GMT+01:00 Никита <acr...@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 life. 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. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
