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. The current playground definition already includes places with surveillance and which require to pay a fee (suggested keys surveillance and fee). cheers, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dplayground [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:leisure%3Dplayground#Better_definition
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
