On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
> Playgrounds almost newer are supervised by any kind of stuff.
> Kids areas and rooms, in most cases have employees who takes care of kids.
>
Sounds like you're describing the difference between a playground and a day
care.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:04:12PM +, Steve Doerr wrote:
> It's childrens_area, not children_area. In normal prose, it would be
> children's area (possessive, with an apostrophe). I think we generally
> accept the dropping of apostrophes in keyword tag values. Similarly, the
> phrase used in th
On 19/12/2014 18:02, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
I was only arguing for using "playground + subtags" instead of
"playground vs children_area"
It's childrens_area, not children_area. In normal prose, it would be
children's area (possessive, with an apostrophe). I think we generally
accept the dr
On 19/12/2014 15:13, ael wrote:
Just a quick interjection from a native English speaker. "Kids" is
slang. The proper English term is children. A kid is young goat.
+1.
I had been planning at some point to throw that particular spanner in
the works.
--
Steve
---
This email has been checked
On 19/12/2014, Никита 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 pl
On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> And please make this childrens_area, kids is a slang word and is not
> appropriate in formal english, such as OSM tagging.
>
Unless, of course, it is an area where young goats are kept. :)
___
Tag
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 17:45 +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> >
> > Trust me, there no overlap between:
> > "Детская площадка" (leisure=playground)
> > "Игровая зона для детей" (amenity=kids_area)
>
> The key criterias are wether it's indoor or outdoor and wether a fee
> is required. No need to i
> but of course you can map things more precisely.
Exactly this was discussed.
> 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? Cycle
On 19/12/2014, Никита wrote:
>> just tag the amenity with playground=yes.
>
> That doesn't work. We have a 20 km^2 airport. Will you really tag it with a
> 20 km^2 playground (child_area)?
Tagging playground=yes on an amenity is just intended as a tagging
shortcut (like atm=yes), but of course yo
On 19/12/2014, Никита wrote:
> Instead of 4 or 10 tags in OSM,
> real people use words: "детская площадка" (leisure=playground), "детская
> игровая комната"(kids_area=*) - this is much simpler and native way to map
> objects. This will work for short term, since we want to use kids_area. We
> cann
> just tag the amenity with playground=yes.
That doesn't work. We have a 20 km^2 airport. Will you really tag it with a
20 km^2 playground (child_area)?
> that I feel it's hopeless to try to tag it.
For the same reason you prefer hotels over motels or hostels. There many
differences but you cann
On 19/12/2014, Никита wrote:
> Ok, lets try:
>
> leisure=playground (usually outdoor), kids_area (almost always indoor, esp
> in Russia during winter)
> leisure=playground (poor equipment, often vandal resistant), kids_area
> (fragile or expensive equipment is not rare)
> leisure=playground (almos
> We are in a geographical database and the relative position (inside=part
of /OR/ outside) of elements are known.
This is not how hotels\motels or playground\childenarea works. Hotels are
hotels, regardless of your position.
The only part that relies on geo functions in my definition is "get
open
On 19/12/2014, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-12-19 12:12 GMT+01:00 Никита :
>>
>> 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
>> o
On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 15:13 +, ael wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 01:52:22PM +0100, Martin Vonwald wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer leisure=playground for standalone and kids_area=yes for an
> > additional feature. This seems intuitive to me.
>
> Just a quick interjection from a native English
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 01:52:22PM +0100, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>
> I would prefer leisure=playground for standalone and kids_area=yes for an
> additional feature. This seems intuitive to me.
Just a quick interjection from a native English speaker. "Kids" is
slang. The proper English term is chil
On 19 December 2014 at 14:09, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>
> 2014-12-19 14:05 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>>
>> -1, there is no reason to tag two identical playgrounds (outdoor, standard
>> set of playground toys) differently just because one
>> is near mall and other not.
>
>
> You are right. But we
> we are talking about "part of"
I think we can use this in definition, but lets wait for Dmitry. Here is my
point:
Definition:
(required, must be tagged) kids_area=* - used for areas dedicated for kids
within bigger facilities (restaurants, fast_foods, hotels, hospitals,
airports, shops)
(requir
> is near mall and other not.
-1 to you. You failed to understand proposal/discussion. There a lot more
differences beside simply indoor/outdoor criteria. Please read discussion
from start.
2014-12-19 17:06 GMT+04:00 Martin Vonwald :
>
>
>
> 2014-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>>
>>
2014-12-19 14:05 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
> -1, there is no reason to tag two identical playgrounds (outdoor, standard
> set of playground toys) differently just because one
> is near mall and other not.
>
You are right. But we are not talking about "near", we are talking about
"part of". T
2014-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> I wouldn't add secondary criteria to the definition that is only sometimes
> or "usually" true.
>
That's usually not a good idea, because sometimes a common motorway might
also be some kind of runway for something similar to an aeroplane ;-)
"
-1, there is no reason to tag two identical playgrounds (outdoor, standard
set of playground toys) differently just because one
is near mall and other not.
2014-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2014-12-19 13:52 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>>
>> I would prefer leisure=playground for
2014-12-19 13:52 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald :
>
> I would prefer leisure=playground for standalone and kids_area=yes for an
> additional feature. This seems intuitive to me.
+1, I'd see it the same. We could still have amenity=kids_area as well (for
explicit mapping of the kids_area, inside the ot
Hi!
2014-12-19 13:17 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> 2014-12-19 13:07 GMT+01:00 Никита :
>>
>> leisure=playground (usually outdoor), kids_area (almost always indoor,
>> esp in Russia during winter)
>>
> why can't we get rid of the exceptions ("usually", "almost always") and
> state that one is
> state that one is outdoors, the other indoors
We speak for new tags now. I don't want to touch old tagging schema
(leisure=playground) with over 200K+ uses, there will be even more people
who don't see need in kids_area=*.
> not convinced. "poor equipment" is not my experience for some places,
t
2014-12-19 13:07 GMT+01:00 Никита :
>
> leisure=playground (usually outdoor), kids_area (almost always indoor, esp
> in Russia during winter)
>
why can't we get rid of the exceptions ("usually", "almost always") and
state that one is outdoors, the other indoors (if standalone), or one is
standalo
> otherwise there would be useless overlap
It is similar to hotel vs motels. Once you see good hotel you will filter
out motels (hostels etc) from hotels. You don't want to classify motels.
You want good hotels.
> We should put the focus on defining criteria for distinguishing these two.
Ok, let
2014-12-19 12:12 GMT+01:00 Никита :
>
> 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 O
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
2014-12-19 15:06 GMT+04:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
> 2014-12-19 8:27 GMT+01:00 Никита :
>>
>> k
2014-12-19 12:06 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> how do you suggest to tag a kids_area?
sorry, forget about this, I overlooked one of the links in the beginning...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/
2014-12-19 11:03 GMT+01:00 Ilpo Järvinen :
>
> However, I think it was bad decision to have it tagged as
> playground=swing/etc
>
+1, and it is also diverging from how tagging in OSM often works. Typically
I'd expect from
leisure=playground
playground=foo
to express that "foo" is some subtype o
2014-12-19 8:27 GMT+01:00 Никита :
>
> kids_area=* is not about these 4 tags. kids_area=* is disjoint to
> leisure=playgrounds. Please read proposal.
>
> http://www.imenno.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HD_08.jpg-940x626.jpg -
> leisure=playground
> http://www.realkidfriendly.com/wp-content/uploads/
This topic not about leisure=playground tagging. We need to define 2 ned
tags: amenity=kids_area and kids_area=*. Please don't tell us about
leisure=playground (it was mentioned in proposal that new tags will be
opposite to leisure=playground) or amenity=recycling or recycling:*=*
shema (WTF).
>
Let me highlight something that was said by you(!) in the email I
answered to:
> > Do you have tags forplayground=pony? playground=pencils? playground=books?
> > playground=table?
> > playground=horses? If not, there no reason to talk about it in
> > kids_area proposal
...and then you proceed t
> Why not?
Is your questions serious? Do you really want to tag 1000 pencils at 30
tables? Will you update this information from day to day? Will you separate
playground:felt-tip pen=yes from playground:pen=yes?
>However, I think it was bad decision to have it tagged as playground=swing/etc
instea
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Никита wrote:
> > leisure=playground
> > playground:supervised=yes/no
> > playground:outdoor=yes/no
> > playground:indoor=yes/no
> kids_area=* is not about these 4 tags. kids_area=* is disjoint to
> leisure=playgrounds. Please read proposal.
>
> http://www.imenno.ru/wp-conten
> leisure=playground
> playground:supervised=yes/no
> playground:outdoor=yes/no
> playground:indoor=yes/no
kids_area=* is not about these 4 tags. kids_area=* is disjoint to
leisure=playgrounds. Please read proposal.
http://www.imenno.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HD_08.jpg-940x626.jpg -
leisure=p
2014-12-18 16:31 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
>
>
> On the other hand, it might maybe also qualify as theme park? What is the
>> distinction?
>>
>
> Lack of a theme, I'd say, besides playing.
well, this one might be "squirrels on LSD"
http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/system/files/C1.JPG ;-)
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2014-12-17 15:39:
I also know a place that might fall into this category:
indoor streetview:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8462111,12.4869449,3a,75y,151.95h,69.96t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sq3Z8vG9t0TkAAAQfCNjLlg!2e0!3e2
some pics: http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/g
Andreas Goss wrote on 2014-12-17 22:41:
I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
leisure=playground
playground:supervised=yes/no
playground:outdoor=yes/no
playground:indoor=yes/no
I agree in general, but the main issue with ta
"usually, the purpose of visiting a playground is to, um, visit the
playground."
"The purpose of a play area is (AFIK) a place to deposit the kids while
(one of) the adults do something else"
It is not so simple. Some more interesting play areas also may be target of
visit (for example - nearby I
usually, the purpose of visiting a playground is to, um, visit the playground.
The purpose of a play area is (AFIK) a place to deposit the kids while (one of)
the adults do something else, or as a amenity to a more serious or boring place
place where the kids can have their attention taken away
I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
leisure=playground
playground:supervised=yes/no
playground:outdoor=yes/no
playground:indoor=yes/no
I agree in general, but the main issue with tagging like this is that I
bet most data
Why should we map something, with different kind of activity and different name
(at least in russian, serbian and many other cyrillic languages) as a
playground?
For example
hr (sr the same but with cyryllic alphabet):
playground
https://translate.google.com/#hr/en/igrali%C5%A1te
play room
http
> but some people at least are starting to use amenity=childcare.
Please don't link to tags without proposals they are meaningless without
actual data/definition. No reason to discuss them here.
kids_area=* is clearly defined as more advanced leisure=playground in the
proposal.
I will use this ta
> Yes we can, see playground=* as approved, e.g. playground=swing
Most likely because you have no idea what objects will be mapped with new
tag kids_area=*. Well please show, show me these tags then:
playground=pcroom
playground=tv
playground=activitytable
playground=activitytable
playground=globe
>
> About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
> playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
> experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
> amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
> have in a mall.
2014-12-17 15:26 GMT+01:00 fly :
>
> +1
>
> > leisure=playground
> > playground:indoor=yes or playground:outdoor=yes
> > playground:supervised=yes or no (referring to staff supervision)
> > access=customers
> >
>
> indoor=yes and supervised=yes/no work.
>
> No need for the subtag construction.
>
>
Am 17.12.2014 um 15:11 schrieb Tom Pfeifer:
> Erik, this gets really messy here. Not mapping a playground as a playground
> just because of the access? We don't map amenity=parking differently
> just because of access=customers.
>
> We have all the tools already without the need for a new tag, and
Erik, this gets really messy here. Not mapping a playground as a playground
just because of the access? We don't map amenity=parking differently
just because of access=customers.
We have all the tools already without the need for a new tag, and
definitely these shopping centre playgrounds should
Then I like kids_area when you are mapping a private playground that
is closed off without direct public access, mainly because I wouldn't
map them as a leisure=playground.
About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I ha
On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote:
> Probably we should define kids_area as:
> leisure=playground
> playground:indoor=yes
> playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"
>
And access tags, such as access=customers.
Phil (trigpoint )
--
Sent f
I meant playground:supervised=no in last message
> So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?
Playground equipement is very different for "outside" playgrounds and
"indoor" facilities. Your kids will never watch tv at regular
leisure=playground, while amenity=kids_area may have not only
Probably we should define kids_area as:
leisure=playground
playground:indoor=yes
playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"
2014-12-17 12:49 GMT+04:00 Erik Johansson :
>
> Hi Dmitry
>
> I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea, I know
> they
Hi Dmitry
I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea, I know
they all have "leisure=playground" outside and inside, non of these were
mapped.
So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> We have
>
Dmitry Kiselev wrote on 2014-12-15 14:52:
I can't agree with you guys.
All kinds of facilities where you can rent a bed for a night may be mapped as
hotel with tons of sub-tags.
But still we have hotels, motels, guest houses, and so on.
[...]
> We have restaurants and cafe, both offers you so
I can't agree with you guys.
All kinds of facilities where you can rent a bed for a night may be mapped as
hotel with tons of sub-tags.
But still we have hotels, motels, guest houses, and so on.
Even campings offers you some place to sleep and other stuff for money.
All kinds of places where y
On 15/12/2014 12:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
+1
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
__
2014-12-15 13:31 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
>
> I don't see a need for a new key here.
> The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
Fully agree.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/l
I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
leisure=playground
playground:supervised=yes/no
playground:outdoor=yes/no
playground:indoor=yes/no
(btw, using "kids_area=both" in the older proposal is poor tagging since
it is not s
Playgrounds are usually outdoor facilities, kids playing rooms and areas are
usually not.
Playgrounds almost newer are supervised by any kind of stuff.
Kids areas and rooms, in most cases have employees who takes care of kids.
Also there is different kind of activities for playgrounds and such
Hi,
The obvious question is: why not using leisure=playground? Since the
definition in the first link you give says "an area where kids can
play".
Dan
2014-12-15 10:51 GMT+00:00 Dmitry Kiselev :
> Hi
>
> We have
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutd
Hi
We have
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
for kids areas mappings.
But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be nice to
have amenity to map such features.
So here is mine proposal for that
http://wiki.op
63 matches
Mail list logo
