Together with two other mappers, I am currently working on a proposal to extend the playground equipment mapping, because during years of playground mapping, we have repeatedly encountered gaps that we would like to fill.
In this context, we ask ourselves how we should name the values for new devices. Playground equipment is very diverse, but there are common “classes” of equipment that are intended for similar activities: e.g. swings (" standard" swings, baby swings, basket swings, tyre swings, rope swings…), climbing devices (frames, walls, poles, slopes…), water play equipment (pumps, canals, barriers, water wheels, sprinklers, water cannons…), balancing devices, rotating devices, sand play equipment, and so on.
Therefore, I wonder if it might be a good idea to use some kind of “namespacing” in the value of the
playground key, e.g.
A namespace in OSM is defined as “a prefix, suffix or infix to a key”, but here, we are talking abound values. Is there a reason why this should be limited to keys? Couldn’t a value like
climbing:pole just as well be evaluated as a fixed term like
climbing_pole, but with the advantage that one could theoretically check unknown values for a prefix component like
climbing:* to be able to assign a rare device to a device class and to basically evaluate an unknown device (e.g.
climbing:rare_device_with_unique_name)? So far, I know this kind of namespacing only for the
surface key, e.g.
A background info on this: TagInfo currently knows 1,099 values for
playground=*, 969 (88%) of them are used less than 10 times, 61% only a single time! A significant number of them cannot be evaluated in any meaningful way. Many of them could certainly be better categorised in this way.
P.S. In other contexts, we might use
<class>=<device>, but I don’t think that’s a good idea for playground equipment (it would lead to a lot of unnecessary new homonymous uses like