Proposal talk:Extended playground equipment

Other water play equipment

Just asked a question on the Community about other types of water-based play equipment: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/water-park-features/9041?u=fizzie41

e.g. Tipping buckets:https://www.watertoys.com/news/why-one-of-the-simplest-water-features-is-one-of-the-most-popular/

Inflatable water parks: https://www.aflexinflatables.com/pages/waterparks-successful-waterpark-features

Icebergs: https://www.365inflatable.com.au/a059-inflatable-water-park-for-sale.html/a059015-australia-buy-inflatable-iceberg.html

Can you think of any better names / descriptions than just those? --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

With water parks, I think the fundamental question is which scheme should be used to map its components: attraction=*, playground=* or a water park specific own key? (Water playgrounds and water play equipment should be distinguished from this). I think that could be worth a separate proposal. Combining the existing leisure=water_park key (for the whole area) with playground=* key (for the equipment) could be a good solution.

For the inflatable water park and the iceberg above, I would tend not to map the entire structure, but the individual "features". For example, the iceberg has the climbing wall on one side and the slide on the other. Just as playground=structure should ideally be divided into its individual components (slides, climbing elements, bridges, platforms, etc.). --Supaplex030 (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Unresolved: That seems to me to go beyond this proposal and require more water park-specific documentation or a water park proposal. --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

spinning_disc – or turntable?

I've come across the term turntable (or "spinning turntable") for this type of equipment on playground equipment manufacturer/dealer websites or in descriptions of photos several times. And I use turntable since some time for this playground equipment. I am not sure if this would be any better than spinning_disc (which is also used by manufacturers/dealers – I couldn't figure out which is more common; on German websites you mostly see "Drehscheibe" which would be the direct translation for "spinning disc" but on non-German websites I often saw "turntable"). And I also saw the terms "rotating disc" and "Dutch disc" (?), but very rarely. Some examples for "turntable":

An argument for turntable could be, that spinning_disc is also used for discs mounted on a wall (often called "dizzy discs") – and turntable in the context of playground is quite unique IMO. One example of such a wall mounted disc:

"Spinning disc wall mounted" (emsland-spielgeraete.de)

Taginfo:

`playground=spinning_disc`	`playground=turntable`

Goodidea (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I can live well with both terms. But a strong pro-argument for spinning_disc is, that an image search shows much clearer results (while a turntable (image search) often seems to show more of a roundabout – I love image searches, because they reflect the linguistic discourse very well :) More opinions? --Supaplex030 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I could also live with both terms – and we already have spinning_circle with a quite similar function (rotating and balancing for several children). The term spinning_disc would fit this. If we ever need/want a value for these "dizzy discs" mounted on a wall, they could be tagged dizzy_disc for example. --Goodidea (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: for now. --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Frequently used values that are not yet documented in the playground list

Moved this table from the proposal page. Moved map, four_square and marble_run to the list of proposed values. Most of the others are tagging mistakes imho and should be tagged in an other way. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Value	TagInfo	Image(s)	Notes
`tetherball`			Wikipedia: Tetherball. Mostly/better mapped `leisure=pitch` + `sport=tetherball`.
`outside_public_arranged`			Special tagging from Nairobi
`multi_play`			Unclear. Some instances where Mapillary images exist nearby suggest that this may refer to `structure` and could be detail-mapped with more specific equipment. Example
`playset`			Might refer to `playground=structure`. Example
`play_structure`			Most likely a synonym for `playground=structure`.
`swings`			Use `playground=swing` + `capacity=*` instead.
`swingset`			Use `playground=swing` + `capacity=*` instead.
`digger`			Use `playground=excavator` instead.
`forest`			? Use `landuse=`/`landcover=` instead.
`basketball_backboard`			Better use `leisure=pitch` + `sport=basketball`/`sport=streetball` (perhaps with `hoops=1`).
`table_tennis` (and variations)			Better use `leisure=pitch` + `sport=table_tennis`.
`tunnel`			See `playground=tunnel_tube`.
`chess_table`			Better use `leisure=pitch` + `sport=chess`. Apparently there is a difference between a chess table where you sit outdoors and play with regular size figures, and the pitch version with oversized figures. --Polarbear w (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC) For what it's worth; I've mapped chess tables as pitch in the past. From an OSM tagging standpoint it's still a place where a particular sport/game is played. Other accepted pitch usages vary in size considerably, as well. E.g. table_tennis is often just mapped as a node; same with basketball where hoops=1. --Ygramul (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
`parallel_bars`			Consider using `fitness_station=parallel_bars` if it's part of a `leisure=fitness_station`.
`tic-tac-toe`			`playground=activitypanel` is documented for this, but a more precise specification might be good.
`water_feature`			Possibly replace with one of the more specific water devices if possible.

Resolved: Added some values to the proposal, but most of the others seems like tagging mistakes and should be tagged in an other way. --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Micro discussions moved from the proposal page

Moved this discussion section from the proposal main page. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Some equipment may still not have an immediately obvious classification, even with the improvements we're thinking of. We can collect them here and discuss whether something sensible can come out of that or we need more tags.

Image(s)	Notes
	A large rotating pad to stand or sit on. Perhaps similar to ~~`playground=rotator_stick`~~`playground=spinner` above, just integrated into a structure. --Ygramul (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC) I'd classify it as a rotator_stick for now, I guess. It has basically the same function. --Ygramul (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
	Something like a hybrid between `playground=rope_swing` and `playground=tire_swing`. However, my bet would be more on `playground=rope_swing` here, just implemented with tires, since the mechanism of suspension and thus how it can move is very similar, albeit probably with more inertia. --Ygramul (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Maybee just `playground=rope_swing` + `material=tire`? --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
	Might be `playground=balance` or something like `playground=swing` + `swing=pole` (or any other way we want to categorize standing swings). --Ygramul (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

tordans: Ein "Stehkreisel" Quelle Quelle; Bezug zu "roundabout"

Das ist etwa das was ich oben mit rotator meine (rotator_stick in meinem Verständnis, wenn es nichts zum draufstellen gibt). Aber alle rotierenden Dinge sollten wir am besten nochmal genauer durchdenken ;) --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Nochmal drüber nachgedacht: Mmn fehlen nur ~~rotator_stick~~spinner und spinning_disc (oben ergänzt). rotator könnte man als Fallback für Edge Cases dokumentieren, wenn wirklich nichts anderes passt. Die Geräte aus dem "Stehkreisel"-Link scheinen mir jeweils zu roundabout, ~~rotator_stick~~spinner oder spinning_disc zu passen, je nach Größe und Ausstattung.--Supaplex030 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ich habe in meiner Gegend mehrmals Rotationsgeräte gesehen mit Vorrichtungen zum Draufsitzen – entweder ähnlich wie bei einem Kettenkarusell mit „Tellern“ o.Ä. an Seilen als Sitzvorrichtung oder wie eine Kombination aus Wippe und Drehgerät (wird manchmal „Pendelwippe“ genannt). Mit 2 oder mehr Sitzplätzen, in ganz verschiedenen Größen/Dimenionen (oft eher groß bis sehr groß als klein). Beispiele von Herstellern: eibe „Pendelkarusell“, Emsland Spielgeräte „Balkenkarussell“, Kompan „WeHopper“ (wobei die, die ich kenne, eher größer sind, habe aber leider kein Foto). Die habe ich mangels passendem Wert bisher nur mit rotator getaggt. Mir fällt da gerade kein guter Wert ein (bzw. mehrere Werte?). Ich hatte mal an carousel gedacht, aber das ist eher ein Oberbegriff bzw. Synonym (oder Australian English) für „Roundabout“ – siehe

Roundabout (play) (laut taginfo 29x benutzt – könnte man vielleicht auch noch in der Tabelle „Frequently used values“ aufführen – als vermutliches Synonym für roundabout). Vielleicht kommen die aber auch nur selten vor und sind damit typische Edge Cases, für die rotator dann ganz OK ist. Nur etwas schade, weil sie manchmal recht groß oder sogar die „Hauptattraktion“ auf einem Spielplatz sind ... --Goodidea (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Das stimmt, diese Art von Gerät wird genauso genannt ("Karussell"), aber funktioniert irgendwie anders und bietet wohl auch eine etwas andere Spielerfahrung. Herausforderung wäre eine passende Definition (was ist das Spezifische? Das Hängen? In Verbindung mit Schwingen?) und ein englischer Begriff. Immerhin scheint roundabout recht eng auf die im Boden verankerten Drehteller mit Sitzbänken und evtl. Tisch in der Mitte zu beziehen. Vielleicht kann man ja carousel mit einem Term fürs Hängen oder Schwingen verbinden, um das Spezifische begrifflich zu verdeutlichen..? Bildersuche nach "hanging carousel" geht schonmal in die richtige Richtung – geht aber irgendwie auch schon wieder in Richtung aerialrotator. Vielleicht reicht das auch schon zur Differenzierung..? --Supaplex030 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Das ist echt verzwickt ... Also roundabout ist für mich auch sehr klar so ein Drehteller mit Sitzbänken und typischerweise (nicht notwendig) mit „Tisch“ in der Mitte, an dem man das Ding zum Drehen bringen kann, wenn man sitzt. Gab's zu meiner Kinderzeit schon ... etwas länger her. Also sozusagen einer der älteren/klassischen Formen eines „Karussells“/Drehspielgeräts und weit verbreitet. Mit „hanging“ würde ich am ehesten etwas zum „Dranhängen“ verbinden, also wo man sich an etwas oben festhalten muss, eben wie bei einem aerialrotator. Ich fand bei der Google-Suche noch die Begriffe „swing carousel“ und „swing ride carousel“ – das trifft es eigentlich ganz gut. Man sitzt ähnlich wie beim Reiten auf irgendwas Wackligem, und es schwingt auch noch hin und her. Also z.B. swing_ride_carousel? Oder zu langer Begriff? Dann müsste man das noch von diesen „Pendelwippen“ unterscheiden, die haben ja ein recht anderes Funktionsprinzip bzw. Bauweise (eher starre Konstruktion, die sich dreht + wippt). Der Google-Übersetzer wirft da „pendulum seesaw“ aus – hmm. Warum nicht? pendulum_seesaw? Allerdings findet eine Google-Bildersuche da nicht gerade diese Spielgeräte. Es gäbe auch noch die Begriffe „pendulum seat combination“ oder "pendulum carousel“ (z.B. hier im Eibe-Shop) – das würde auch in etwa auf diese beiden Spielgerätetypen passen, wobei so ein swing_ride_carousel nicht unbedingt pendeln/wippen muss ... Es gibt anscheinend sogar streng genommen 3 Typen: 1.) wacklig sitzen/schwingen und drehen = swing_ride_carousel 2.) stabil sitzen/drehen und wippen (nicht an runterhängenden Seilen, eher starre Konstruktion) = pendulum_seesaw und 3.) wacklig sitzen/schwingen, drehen UND pendeln/wippen = swing_ride_pendulum_carousel??? Oh je ... Also spezifisch scheint mir schon zu sein, ob man wacklig sitzt + hin und her schwingen kann, und das Ganze sich dann auch noch dreht, oder ob man fest sitzt ohne schwingen zu können, und starr wippt und sich dabei dreht (also eine Art aufgepimpte Wippe) oder eben ersteres mit Dreh- UND (wahrscheinlich nur leichter) Wipp-Möglichkeit. Diese 3. Variante (wie bei dem Eibe-Shop-Beispiel) könnte man vielleicht unter den Tisch fallen lassen bzw. unter Typ 1 subsummieren, weil das Primäre wohl eher das sitzende Schwingen/Drehen ist als das noch zusätzlich mögliche Wippen. Also ich würde glaube ich 2 Typen unterscheiden. Vielleicht wären da ja auch Zusatztags nicht schlecht, also Properties, die diese Bewegungs-/Sitzmöglichkeiten usw. beschreiben. Dann käme man vielleicht sogar für alles, was rotiert, mit einem Haupttag wie rotator aus. Das wäre ein anderer Ansatz ... Aber es scheint ja eher in die Richtung zu gehen, möglichst spezifische Begriffe für spezifische Geräte zu finden. Wobei die Hersteller sich da anscheinend ständig Neues ausdenken und gerne auch Kombinationen ... ob man da hinterherkommt? --Goodidea (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Genau deshalb, weil es so viele Formen geben kann, erst recht auf der ganzen Welt, würde ich – wenn überhaupt – höchstens eine Form davon unterscheiden. Allerdings kann ich mich auch gar nicht daran erinnern, sowas (ich würde es mal Arbeitstitel swing_carousel nennen) jemals in freier Wildbahn gesehen zu haben... Gibts das in deiner Ecke und am besten darüber hinaus wirklich öfter? --Supaplex030 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Ich kann da nur von meiner Ecke reden ... Und von wirklich „öfters“ würde ich auch nicht sprechen, eher selten, aber schon ein paar Mal; und wenn, dann recht auffällig. Goodidea (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ygramul: Ein "Sitzkreisel" Beispiel. Gibt's in verschiedenen Formen. Aber ich glaube, sie sind alle leicht geneigt, so daß die normale Gewichtsverlagerung des Kreiselnden die Drehung beinahe automatisch aufrecht erhält.

Weiteres Bild hier - ähnlich wie ein ~~rotator_stick~~spinner, aber nicht zum Stehen? --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hier noch eine Variante, die vermutlich sowohl stehend als auch sitzend verwendbar ist. --Ygramul (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Würde das nicht alles etwa zu ~~rotator_stick~~spinner passen? Man könnte (ähnlich wie bei Toiletten ;) über ein "seated"-Tag nachdenken, um auszudrücken, dass es eine Sitzmöglichkeit gibt. Ich finde seating, standing etc. für sowas ganz gut.--Supaplex030 (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Shall we make a recommendation on how to map surfaces with wood chips or gravel as "playground surface"? I always use landcover=woodchips etc., area=* + surface=* combinations are also very common... But maybe this is a bit out of scope and should be discussed separately. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

That's perhaps for a different proposal. And perhaps that would be larger in scope than just playgrounds, but then we're probably back to landcover which didn't exactly excite people enough to vote ... --Ygramul (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Flat water basins seem to often be called mud tables. And admittedly, they certainly invite to throw sand in as well (especially when close to the ground). Would that be a useful additional tag for water equipment? If so, where does basin end and mud_table start? --Ygramul (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I would map it as "water_basin", because at least in my area basins almost always become muddy over time ;) --Supaplex030 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sand play equipment is often integrated into tables that are called "sand board" or "sand table" by manufacturers. Not exactly a table to sit on (unlike table), but a platform that's more for playing than standing on (unlike platform), which may support other devices, such as a funnel or a sieve. --Ygramul (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

sand_table?

Yes, I see them so regularly that I have already thought of sand_table. I would add it as well. On the right there is a first picture, but I think there are better examples (e.g. somewhat larger, "board"-like ones). --Supaplex030 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Seen once so far, might be worth documenting: A wall with a large window and counter that allows children to play shop. I think a play house on one playground here has something similar in one wall. Definitely not a normal window, but rather a counter where sand cakes may be "sold". playground=shop exists once. already. No idea whether it's intended for this, though. --Ygramul (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not "unique" or common enough to be included in a "standardised list". I would maybe map it as a playhouse (considering covered=no or similar ;) --Supaplex030 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

How to tag foot supports on climbing_slope? -> Those things also exist with various different foot supports (none, horizontal "steps" like in the picture, or protrusions commonly found on climbing walls). I've mapped those as climbing_slope in the past due to similarity to climbing_wall. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- I like handle=yes for tagging foot and hand supports. --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  - handle is documented for things that allow to change the state of an object, though, and thus is more an interactive feature. Plus, the name implies hand operation, as do the current values. (yes isn't documented yet, although is probably a valid value that allows for iterative refinement. I'm not sure about this one. support is also used for something different. Perhaps something like foot_support? Handles for hand support could technically be handrail=yes, perhaps. --Ygramul (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: Archive of older discussions during the proposal drafting stage. --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Sub tagging and it's variants

In general I'd probably like to have a bunch of more generic tags that broadly describe the purpose of the equipment (slide, spinning / rotating, bridge, climbing, balance, water, sand, ...) and use additional detail tags (perhaps using the value as key, as is common in other places of OSM tagging already) to describe the actual implementation. This may make it easier to “invent” new equipment names since we don't need a canonical top-level name that makes sense – only one for the detail tag. So instead of having climbingframe, climbingwall, ladder, ... those could all just be playground=climbing + climbing=*. This would invalidate/deprecate some names currently in common use, so open for discussion here. In the vein of this proposal I've already added playground=sand as a sort of general category to the table above. playground=water could similarly be extended to allow for tagging specific water-based equipment like pumps, (interactive) barriers, intended paths for the water, drains, etc. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, even though this implies a significant impact on the existing playground scheme. I wonder if it's a good idea to use the playground terms directly as secondary keys, or if the playground:* notation could be used. Example: playground=water + water=channel - the latter is already common in other contexts and could possibly lead to conflicts somewhere. On the other hand, homonymous keys are a common phenomenon in OSM. The list of Homonymous keys would definitely become a bit longer ;)

Alternatively, one could use playground:water=channel instead, for example (but this too is a homonymous use/changes the meaning of existing tags, since this key is already part of the playground scheme with values yes/no). --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

To not get clashes (and I wouldn't want to hijack water=* for playgrounds, as I think the existing use is far more important than playground micromapping) one could also rename playground=water to playground=water_play and then use water_play as secondary key. Might go nicely with sand_play and water is not used that often so changing it for a more consistent scheme might not hurt that much at this point, I think. But also a different secondary key would probably be fine. There's a few schemes with foo:type=* already as well (hydrants, I think, have a lot of those). --Ygramul (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

So, if I see correctly, we have the following suggestions so far (I use playground=water as an example):

1) The direct use of the playground value as a subkey (e.g. playground=water + water=channel - common in OSM, but there are homonymous interferences with other uses).

2) Add a playground:* prefix to the subkey (playground=water + playground:water=channel - homonymous confusion would no longer exist, but the playground:*=* keys would be redefined).

3) We make sure that all subkeys do not conflict with documented keys (e.g. playground=water_play + water_play=channel, but also need changes in other cases like bridge).

4) We use a new key like playground=water + water:type=channel (already in use, but deprecated e.g. in the context of natural=water).

Did I forget something? Are there other or better variants? I think with a list of suggestions like this, I could start a discussion on the tagging mailing list to get a first community opinion... --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that's about it, yeah. Well, there's probably an option 5, although I don't find it that desirable, which would eschew broad category tags for a lot more playground=* values which are then no longer explicitly linked as being water-based. The preferred direction there probably comes down to what we expect data consumers to do with that data. --Ygramul (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this 5th option exists too, of course. I ignored that as I see that option on a different decision level: So question 1 is: 1A) individual tags for each type of equipment as before or 1B) main tags and subtags for "classes" of similar playground equipment? If 1B, then question 2 is: How is the subtag "syntax"? (If 1A, we could think about a standard scheme like water:cannon, water:archimedes_screw, swing:tire...). --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I more and more like the variant with a tag prefix: climbing:slope, climbing:pole, water:basin, water:sprinkler, sand:chute, sand:sieve... Even if it sometimes reads a bit strange when the sub-term is in front in spoken language (bridge:belt, swing:tire...). If you are not sure what fits, or in edge cases, just use the generic term (e.g. balance instead of balance:beam/balance:rope/what ever). Also for rendering purposes, automated equipment evaluations etc. this values can be interpreted easily. --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For documentation: We discussed this topic in the forum and the opinion was mostly that the ":" notation has no advantages. --Supaplex030 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolved: sub tagging approach has not gained acceptance in the (community) discussion. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Some notes of the proposal authors moved from the proposal page

Translation-Sammlung (DE)

belt_bridge: "Hüpfbandbrücke"
spinner: "Drehteller"
spinning_disc: "Drehscheibe"
rope_swing: "Raupenschwinger"
stepping_posts: "Balancierstelze"
tunnel_tube: "Kriechtunnel"
climbingframe: "Kletterspinne" oder "Netzaufstieg"

Gute Recherche-Quellen

Die Website http://www.seibel-spielgeraete.de/katalog.php ist eine gute Quelle für Namen mit Fotos.
Die Website https://shop.eibe.de/Spielgeraete/ ist eine weitere Seite für Beispiele zu Spielgeräten mit Bildern
Die Website http://www.stilum.com/en/playground-equipment/ ist eine gute Quelle für Namen in Englisch.
Die Website http://www.med-etc.com/soz/kind/sp/spielplatz-elemente02-5-bis-11-jahre04-rondelle-poller-trampolin-spielschlange-klettern.html hat eine sehr eigenartige Struktur, aber hat viele Fotos und "Beschreibungsvorschläge"
Die Webseite https://www.niclimbingframes.com/climbing-frames hat einige Namen für Bestandteile von playground=structure (dort offenbar als climbing frame bezeichnet)
Die Webseite https://www.flightsoffantasy.co.uk/product-portfolio/traditional-play-apparatus/ hat einige gute Begriffsvorschläge für Geräten, die hier neu hinzukommen

List and Numbers

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KubPCL1adcmCRSXBNZ4IRqyCVQLSECSCeVezkqfHWyw/edit#gid=0 has a list of all playground=* in Germany with some pivot-Tables to groups the results. We can use it to find elements that are mapped with description (or fixme/todo) which is a strong indicator that a more precise value is missing.

Resolved: Archive of topics from the proposal drafting stage. --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More common existing values

Very nice and detailed proposal! Love the specificity and detail OSM allows. I just wanted to point out a couple of items in your proposal that I think have more common existing tagging schemes:

playground=four_square. The taginfo box indicates 450 or so uses of the playground=* value, but leisure=pitch + sport=four_square is documented and has over 4000 uses. The latter combo also feels more right to me, as four square is a ball game that requires a court, rather than a piece of playground equipment.

playground=sprinkler. This appears to be very similar to playground=splash_pad, but it has only 7 current uses. While playground=splash_pad's documentation consists of an inactive proposal, it has over 1500 uses and is recommended on the existing playground=* wiki page. Additionally, in my (personal, native US English speaker) opinion, sprinkler is not the best word for this sort of feature, splash_pad is more specific/descriptive.

--Willkmis (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments!

I have removed four_square from the proposal, since you are right: This is a sports field. Although there is also playground=hopscotch (in the list of already approved values), this game is much more an improvised children's game on playgrounds than four square. (We had included this value because it is one of the most common undocumented values, but I would consider it a tagging mistake now.)

Regarding sprinklers: This value is rather intended to map individual or significant water jets that are not necessarily part of a splash pad. But you're right: the distinction was absolutely unclear. I tried to clarify that in the description and chose a different image that looks less like a splash pad.

Does that look ok to you?

--Supaplex030 (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see, you intend sprinkler for the individual water jets, quite the micromapping. The explanation makes much more sense now, thanks. I wonder if there isn't a better term than sprinkler (this term to me implies small amounts of water sprayed in all directions, like you'd use to water a lawn, not the fountain- or jet-like water features I imagine are intended), maybe even simply water_jet. But I don't feel terribly strongly about it. --Willkmis (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Mhm, we (the proposal authors) aren't native english speakers, so it is difficult for us to find "the best" term. The problem is that the term can cover both types: Both "sprinklers" (in the sense of water spraying in different directions) and "jets" (in the sense of water spraying in a directed direction). Would one tend to associate one of the two terms for both together, or is there possibly an alternative generic term? I had the feeling that "sprinkler" covers this sufficiently well... --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe water_sprayer? I think a sprayer can be jet-like or sprinkly. I also considered fountain, but image searches for the two suggest playground=water_sprayer is better. TrekClimbing (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@TrekClimbing: Thanks, water_sprayer sounds good and image search looks fine :) Changed that value again. --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: --Supaplex030 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Playground vs non-playground distinction

I have strong doubts about moving or putting items in playground=* simply because they exist in or near a leisure=playground when they can be multipurpose, and blended in a park. They could be treated by adding eg playground=yes to the leisure=* or man_made=* feature.

Is it necessary to have playground=ladder and playground=steps when ladder=yes and highway=steps exist? Relatedly, highway=steps is mentioned for attraction=water_slide in Proposal:Extend_water_slides#Around_the_water_slide for a similar situation.
How can this be defined? For example, a raised area in a park has playing equipment on the slope, and general grass field on the flat part. You have to access the slides from the general walkway at the edge, which is also possible by walking up some stairs.
1. Is the slope, or the entire raised area a playground=mound ?
2. Is the stairs playground=steps ?
3. If almost the entire playground is raised, is leisure=playground + playground=mound to be used?
A photo example https://resources.chatterblock.com/media/cache/d5/56/d5561e71afed054caacada4510c1a7d9.jpg from https://www.chatterblock.com/resources/50292/lansdowne-park-childrens-play-area-ottawa-on/ (Similar example in https://littlelakecounty.com/playground-profile-harts-wood-park-round-lake/ with normal amenity=bench and blackboard next to the playground )
1. playground=blackboard : Seems to be outside the playing area, and very tall for everyone to use. There are equally many amenity=blackboard at 18 instances)
2. playground=seat ( and imagine there are playground=table around them): Again they are outwards for all ages to sit on.
Other features with suspicious utility:
1. playground=belt_bridge and playground=ropebridge : Why are they needed when playground=bridge is "approved" ? You already mentioned bridge:structure=* ...
2. playground=track : If a general age-shared skateboard/scooter route passes near playing equipment without signficiant distinction, is it not a leisure=track ?
3. playground=blackboard : Eg https://resources.chatterblock.com/media/cache/d5/56/d5561e71afed054caacada4510c1a7d9.jpg seems to be outside the playing area, and very tall for everyone to use https://www.chatterblock.com/resources/50292/lansdowne-park-childrens-play-area-ottawa-on/ (there are equally many amenity=blackboard at 18 instances)
4. playgroud=musical_instrument : Eg is https://www.dreamstime.com/yellow-flowery-public-piano-park-blue-bench-outside-sunny-day-flower-image121680026 a amenity=piano , or playgroud=musical_instrument + musical_instrument=piano ?
5. playground=megaphone
6. playground=hammock : It is very common to have hammocks on grass or sand. Does the grass or sand area suddenly become a leisure=playground if there are playing equipments, and the leisure=hammock not be used? Including only trees with swings attach to them that are obviously meant for adults too. Or they can be bench swings, which can be integrated with normal swing seats. https://www.easternjunglegym.com/classic-cedar-bench-swing (also asked in https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1685490178019299 recently)
7. playground=artwork : Highly subjective criteria of tourism=artwork
8. playground=stepping_stone : How can you distinguish this from a ring of playground=seat ? Again they can be multipurpose.

--- Kovposch (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"I have strong doubts about moving or putting items in playground=* simply because they exist in or near a leisure=playground when they can be multipurpose, and blended in a park." -> That's not the purpose. The proposal is about being able to categorize objects/devices that are part of playground equipment. A ladder, bridge or hammock that is part of the equipment of a playground (and intended for children to play with) must be evaluable as such. Nobody would consider mapping a playground bridge with man_made=bridge, would they?

Whether an object is part of a playground equipment/intended for children to play with in a playground like environment or not is determined by the individual mapper's spatial perception on site and can not be defined in the strict sense - as it is in many other aspects of OSM. If something is not part of the playground equipment or is not created for the target group, then of course other tags should be used, e.g. leisure=hammock, highway=steps etc.

Please be aware that this "issue" also affects many approved playground tags, e.g. playground=climbingwall/funnel_ball/hopscotch/sledding vs. leisure=* + sport=climbing/funnel_ball/hopscotch/toboggan; playground=teenshelter vs. amenity=shelter; playground=youth_bench vs. amenity=bench + bench:type=stand_up; playground=map vs. information=map; playground=* vs. fitness_station=* etc... Some of these I consider much more problematic (or would even deprecate them). But in general, apart from that, it's all about categorizing - and playground equipment should be readable as playground equipment.

Objects like artwork show the gray area between these spheres well in my opinion. I mapped many "artworks" that are simply decorative elements on playgrounds, but which I would like to map to fully record the playground elements. From the perspective of a user of the tourism=artwork tag, however, I would consider them spam, so I have an impulse not to tag them as tourism=artwork in general, but only if they have some relevance and possibly some accessibility to the public (such a definitional criterion of tourism=artwork, as I read it). But that's certainly debatable. (See also short discussion on Tagging Mailing List).

Regarding the individual points:

1. see above

2. If the stairs/walkways are part of the general way network, just use highway=*. playground=stairs is for stairs, that are not part of the way network, but just for playing on or reaching a playground device. playground=mound is intended for "artificial hills, elevations, waves etc. intentionally designed for play" (quoting the proposal) – so it's your choice whether you think the situation fits this definition.

3. Again, a good illustration of the gray areas between the two worlds of "playground" and "public." As in other contexts, in case of doubt, it will be up to the decision of the mapper on site how he/she perceives it.

4.1. From a playground usage point of view, there are fundamental differences between (fixed) bridges, rope bridges and belt bridges, so we think different categories are reasonable (especially a belt bridge has nothing to do with the other - it is used in a completely different way). We mentioned bridge:structure=* and cable_number=* mainly because it is already on the playground page - that seems to me then rather an offer to super-micromappers who want to capture such details. But using such special tags alone to distinguish all kinds of devices makes data analysis impossible at some point.

4.2. see above

4.3. see above

4.4. Doesnt't look like a piano that is part of a playground/belongs to playground equipment... playground=musical_instrument is intended to map different kinds of audible playground devices.

4.5. Yeah, very special one, but why not? We could also remove it from the list but mappers nevertheless might use it "in the wild". Maybe it's a bit spammy to have such special devices in the list... I don't know. What do others think?

4.6. see above and TML discussion, quoting: "TagInfo knows 76x leisure=hammock, but I think we should use this tagging only outside of playgrounds (since hammocks on playgrounds are for a specific target group / accordingly sized / not for public use in the stricter sense). I added a reference to this tagging in the proposal: 'For public hammocks in general that are not part of playgrounds resp. intended for this specific target group, there is leisure=hammock in use.'"

4.7. see above: I'm also not sure about this, but I feel it's spam to map every artwork decoration on a playground as an tourism=artwork.

4.8. As with many of the other points: It's all up to the perception of the individual mapper. Reality is so diverse that it is not possible to define every case, but we can come up with suitable categorization options if possible. Why should that stop us from having two (in most cases) clearly distinguishable categories? --Supaplex030 (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to add a paragraph like the following to the Rationale of the Proposal?

Moreover, this proposal is intended for tagging devices on playgrounds, i.e. objects that are located in a certain spatial context and are intended for a certain target group. Many values - not only those from this proposal - can also occur in a similar form outside of playgrounds and are then mapped differently: e.g. bridges, stairs, shelters, hammocks, sports fields, fitness equipment etc.

--Supaplex030 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And that's not what my comment is about. To "categorize objects/devices that are part of playground equipment", I'm asking to use playground=yes if there is an existing feature tag, or use other playground=* as far as possible. Only create new playground=* if it is distinctive.
0.1. playground=funnel_ball is not "approved" though? There are still half as many sport=funnel_ball now. In contrast, there are 10-times more sport=four_square than playground=four_square . playground=climbingwall is fine, as it is a playing equipment.
0.2, 2.1. In fact, playground=sledding further shows the problem of playground=mound in being multipurpose. The natural=hill suggested in Tag:playground=sledding#Descriptive_tags is sufficient when combined with anthropogenic=yes or refitted=yes as appropriate. Then sport=toboggan can be added when it is for sledding. Also, attraction=summer_toboggan has been used (though with tourism=attraction inappropriately). So playground=* is best reserved for playing equipment. Then attraction=* or some leisure=* could be used for areas.
0.3. To elaborate, playground=water_cannon can be found in playing pools and water parks. The nozzle archetype of playground=sprinkler has been asked in Talk:Tag:amenity=fountain#Location of water exit points? and somewhere else I forgot. In fact, the cover photo File:Urbeach-high-park-splashpad.jpg of playground=splash_pad (as compared to fountain=splash_pad ) is not in a playground either, but at a swimming pool

808430981 while being tagged as leisure=playground now.
4.1. I'm saying you can use the existing playground=bridge , not man_made=bridge . Is there a need to invent more playground=*bridge ?
4.4. Found a good example https://www.dreamstime.com/editorial-photography-girls-making-music-playing-piano-green-playground-katowica-poland-katowice-lies-urban-zone-population-image44256477
4.4.1. What I want to say is if there's no significant difference with the proper instrument, it doesn't have to fall into a specialized playground=* here. On the contrary, what I'm thinking is, if it is a floor piano played by feet, that can be distinguished from other simplified playground pianos played by hands upright. Using playground=musical_instrument + musical_instrument=piano still doesn't show what it is.
4.7. How about exhibit=artwork ?
--- Kovposch (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kovposch: Sorry for my late feedback.

I'm afraid I can't get your point. It seems to me you are raising general issues that go beyond the proposal itself as they relate to established tags/practice, but less to the proposed values. How you classify an object in a specific case, if you're not sure if it's a "playground" or not, is something you'll have to decide for yourself depending on the spatial context. If you are sure that it is a playground equipment, then the proposal provides clear categories.

We have discussed a few things among the proposal authors and I have just made a few changes to the proposal, some of which you have also mentioned:

- We removed megaphone (too specific).

- We removed artwork (too hard to distinguish from tourism=artwork)

- We removed tyre_swing as the established swing is sufficient for it (possibly with an addition such as material=tyre)

- I have added a paragraph similar to the one suggested above in the rationale regarding the differentiation from objects outside of playgrounds.

--Supaplex030 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok what about playground=bridge ? Any difference with playground=swing ? --- Kovposch (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We also discussed bridges once again in the proposal group. There are basically two types of bridges on playgrounds: 1.) Fixed bridges, usually as a passage or part of structures, which primarily have a connecting function; and 2.) suspended/non-fixed bridge-like structures, especially suspended rope bridges.

This second type is characterized by the fact that moving across the bridge itself is a significant activity, which is usually also the primary function of the "device". In addition, this "device" is usually unsuitable for very young children. ropebridges are therefore fundamentally different in terms of their function or type of use from fixed bridges (which most children probably do not even particularly notice when they cross them). Thus, if we think in terms of function rather than physical form, as is common with playground equipment, we argue that a top-level distinction is appropriate here as well. The proposed ropebridge value would thus be a subset of the existing bridge value.

(This could be compared with swing - basketswing - rope_swing, although there are probably much fewer imaginable other special forms in the case of bridges. Btw: belt_bridges are so independent of this by their function that we should not associate them with "real" bridges. They probably have more in common with a trampoline than with a bridge...)

--Supaplex030 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In practice, I think mappers are distinguishing some existing playground=* tags from their non-playground counterpart tags by whether they're designed and used as playground equipment. For example, I've seen some playground=playhouses that are rather commodious, larger perhaps than an actual residence in a much less privileged community, but building=house would be inadequate to describe it, because however luxurious it is, it isn't designed for living in. The difference between a playground=bridge and a man_made=bridge bridge:structure=simple-suspension is not so much its size or length – some playgrounds at them parks feature very long footbridges – but rather its utility for transportation.

That said, I'm not above tagging the walking course at a preschool as a leisure=track sport=walking, which would be uninteresting to a router anyways and wouldn't be misleading from a safety perspective. If playground=track gets approved for this purpose, I'd probably just dual-tag it. Conversely, I successfully promoted playground=map because that's the primary function of most painted pavement maps, but I second-guess myself every time I encounter a similar map in a different context and resort to tagging it as artwork. If there were something like education=map, I probably wouldn't have felt a strong need to promote a competing playground=map.

– Minh Nguyễn ^💬 00:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

2. Why not exhibit=map ? --- Kovposch (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Supaplex030, I think it would be useful to add your proposed paragraph to the rationale, and maybe mention tyre swings too. TrekClimbing (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Removed some overspecific values and added some notes to the rationale. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

ride or ride_on

Ride conjures images of carousels, roundabouts and other moving equipment for many children. I can't think of a really good term for the pictured item but I think ride_on works better. TrekClimbing (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. That sounds good: we have changed the value to ride_on. --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Changed value to "ride_on". --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Electronic devices

Hi! I just came across the following equipment.

Electronic equipment: control screen

Electronic equipment: Button

It's an electronic screen in which one can select some games. These games then involve buttons attached in several places of the playground. Games usually involve pressing the right button at the right time (they change color accordingly) across the playground.

The pictures are taken from this place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10984120035 Here is a newspaper article about the addition of these games in Brest: https://www.letelegramme.fr/finistere/brest-29200/spanjardin-kennedyspan-les-8-15-ans-ont-leurs-jeux-interactifs-1109094.php

I feel that such playground device deserve a tag. What about playground=electronic?

MartinShadok (talk)

We should only list "typical" devices in the proposal that are common on a lot of playgrounds. You can of course use electronic or similar (Any tags you like), but it seems too specific for the proposal.

In this context, we would like to add another paragraph to the Rationale section, something like this:

Because of the diversity of playground equipment, this list can never be complete. If you come across equipment that you think deserves its own value, you should document it on the discussion page of the playground page to share or discuss it with other mappers. In the future, it is possible to add further discussed values to the list.

Does that sound good? --Supaplex030 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Reworked the rationale section to address the balance between the diversity of playground equipment and categorizing it as clearly as possible, and to motivate mappers to document or discuss new values on the wiki's talk page.. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

balance_rope

I'm not sure about balance_rope. A balance_rope without anything to hold on to, especially the example of steel ropes side by side, seems very similar to a slack_line. I think the balance_ropes with things to hold on to are known as a rope_traverse (image search), which could also be subtyped as drop (hanging handles or ropes), cross (two ropes in an X pattern), and parallel (one level rope). Also, a balance_rope with two parallel ropes at hand height either side would be a rope_bridge I think. --TrekClimbing (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

We have to be careful how granular we are in differentiating different values. The more general the values are, the more reliable they can be mapped. Therefore, I would not establish different values for "the same" device if the differences are only in handle ropes or something similar. In my opinion, tags like handrail=* are well suited to capture these "finer" differences.

Therefore, I would now even tend to remove the value slack_line again, because the similarity to balance_rope is too great...

What do you think? --Supaplex030 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I would keep slack_line/slackline because I have heard of one of them, although I've never seen one on a playground. I would extend its meaning here to include ropes of any thickness. I would use rope_traverse in place of balance_rope for variants where there is a ropes/handles to hold on to - for me this is enough of a distinction. I've never heard of a balance rope, it seems made up to me.

I was thinking rope_traverse=cross, etc. but we could use handrail=* for it, although it feels a bit of a stretch.

What I'm not sure about is the intersection with a rope_bridge. If that instead was called a wobble_bridge/wobbly_bridge it would emphasise the function and separate those with some kind of surface to stand on from those with just a rope. --TrekClimbing (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We discussed this again in the proposal group and think it's a very good solution to drop both balance_rope and slackline and use rope_traverse instead for all devices of this kind (slackline is a term for a very specific device and should not be used to name this "class" imho). handrail=* should be used as an addition in our opinion. We also changed ropebridge to wobble_bridge to avoid ambiguity. Are you fine with this? --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, yes. Maybe add tightrope to the description also as people might search for that. TrekClimbing (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Merged balance_rope and slackline in new value rope_traverse and renamed ropebridge -> wobble_bridge. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

More suggested values

Please consider adding spinner_bowl, they are quite distinctive and common (also called a spinning dish or spinning cup), and not flat so not a spinning_disc (but would be good to add at the same time).

cargo_net is quite common and distinctive for climbing, also as part of a structure (instead of ladder or climbing_slope for example).

parallel_bars come in two distinct forms with different functions. The kind pictured, on a steep angle, are a slide (hook arms and legs over either side). The others (level) are for traversing or swinging on. parallel_bars seems right for the horizontal kind, bannister_bars seems to be the right term for the sliding down kind. --TrekClimbing (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

spinner_bowl: That's a good hint, thank you. Can you contribute a picture for this? I am not aware of any such devices in my area and have not found a free image on Wikimedia or similar.

cargo net: I always map such climbing nets as climbing_frame. I find it difficult to define distinctions here and the values should generally not be too specific...

parallel_bars/bannister_bars: parallel_bars is a value from the documented fitness_station=* values. I wouldn't establish any distinctions here that aren't already established there (and personally find the distinction a bit too specific to be suitable for "normal" playground mappers – see also discussions above). --Supaplex030 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are a couple of pictures of a spinner_bowl: side view, inside_view.

I think a climbing frame is necessarily hard, not rope, and standalone. But the pictured jungle gym on the original page means that will have been tagged as such, so okay.

fitness_station=parallel_bars are defined as "Two horizontal bars", which is what I suggest keeping here. bannister_bars, like those pictured are on a steep angle and used for a different purpose, they are slides. --TrekClimbing (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your images for the spinner_bowl. We added this value with one of your images (I still cropped it - I hope that's ok :).

Regarding bannister_bars, we can follow your argument and added the value in distinction to parallel_bars (all our kids are a bit younger, so we weren't really aware of the "slide" function!). --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved: Added spinner_bowl and bannister_bars. --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. I don't know if all spinner bowls are tilting so maybe make that optional. The description for bannister bars is good, it just needs moving to a different section. Thanks TrekClimbing (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)