On 19/12/2014, Никита <acr...@gmail.com> 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 playground explicitly (this would also work for children_area=yes as has been suggested elsewhere). Then you say this doesn't work for big amenities (airports), I repeat that it is only an optional shortcut, and you say this is what was being discussed. I wonder why you said it didn't work then ? >> 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? Cycleways? Motels? What tags > should we remove? Can't make anything of such an over-the-top comment. >> adding a brand new tag is a much more heavy-weight approach than refining > an existing and common tag. > Good luck with downloading over 230K+ instances worldwide just to see what > was mapped before in places you never visited > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/leisure=playground. Why would anybody want to do that ? Nobody's arguing for a mass-retag. All the currently-existing leisure=playground are fine (AFAIK). Actually, since you bring up the subject, introducing an amenity=children_area could potentially bring up the "we need to check all existing playgrounds to see if they should rather be tagged as children_area" discussion, which in itself is an argument against children_area. > Please, clarify leisure=playground for us! > Define one tags that will suite every single case mapped before for every > single application at once! Make proposal about leisure=playground > deprecation! It's easy! Leisure=playground it is. I certainly don't want to deprecate it. In my view, introducing amenity=children_area *is* deprecating some current usecases of leisure=playground, which is unecessary. Let's try to recap the usecases : * Indoor/outdoor is already inherently mapped with building=* * Size is also inherently mapped. Minor playgrounds inside a small amenity can be tagged on the amenity itself. * Fee, surveillance, opening_hours, max/min_age are standard tags * The kind of activities found in the playground are a factor of indoor/outdoor, fee, and surveillance. * Specific activities can be tagged using playgroud=tv or (better) playground:tv=yes * Wether parents/gardians can leave the kids or not is a factor of too many things to be mappable. Let the parent decide. Did I miss a usecase, an important distinction ? Is it one that justifies adding a new tag, with the associated issues of definition overlap and mapper/renderer/etc uptake ? Or are we just getting confused and talking about different problems ? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
