User:Supaplex030/playground equipment

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New Playground Tags

Key Value Element Comment Photo TagInfo
playground balance_rope node way
  • tordans: How do we distinguish "with/out handrail rope"
    • just use Key handrail? ;) --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Would at least allow us to document whether there are handropes left, right or both. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Sometimes also found with two parallel ropes to walk on, which makes it easier for bipedal creatures to shuffle along both of them at the same time. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • May also be a fairly thick rope to balance on,something of a difference between width=0.02 and width=0.15. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
balance_rope
balance_rope
balance_rope
playground ropebridge node way area Hänge-/Wackelbrücke. Besser: playground=bridge mit Subtags: [bridge:]rope/solid..., auch bridge:structure=simple-suspension ist für Hängebrücken bereits im playground-Wiki erwähnt. Nicht wackelnde Brücken sind dann wohl meist bridge:structure=beam. In und um Neukölln sind Hängebrücken bisher oft als wobble_bridge gemappt.
rope_bridge
playground belt_bridge

or better as sub category of bridge (e.g. bridge:belt)

node way area
  • tordans: Deutscher Name "Hüpfbandbrücke", siehe Hersteller
  • Für mich passt das Spielprinzip der seasaw. Daher darauf basieren? "conveyor belt seasaw"?
    • Das Prinzip der "bridge" haben die Elemente eigentlich nie, sie stehen immer für sich allein.
      • Jein, siehe Foto-Link. Dort eingebunden in eine Art „Kletterparcours“, den man komplett ohne Bodenberührung ablaufen kann, wenn mal wieder ein Vulkan ausbricht ... Aber ja, oft verbinden sie nichts und sind nur eine Brücke im Sinne dessen, daß sie an zwei Seiten befestigt sind. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    • "belt bridge" scheint (analog zu "[Hüpf]Bandbrücke") auch im englischen ein gängiger Begriff zu sein (vgl. Google Image Search) bzw. so hatte ich es irgendwo bei einem Hersteller gelesen, daher hatte ich ihn so genutzt. --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
belt_bridge
belt_bridge
playground spring_board node way area ... Bisher insbesondere in und um Neukölln auch als wobble_board getaggt -> umtaggen.
spring_board
spring_board
playground climbing:slope node way Usually part of a structure.
  • tordans: Could also be climbing_frame with rope support.
    • "climbing_frame" scheint mehr für "Kletternetze"/netzförmige Kletterdinge reserviert zu sein. Ich würde eher an eine "Leiter" mit rope support denken, aber da diese Dinger so häufig sind, würde ich einfach nen eigenen Begriff dafür setzen. --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • Maybee just use ladder or steps (depends on incline) with handrail:center=yes etc.? --Supaplex030 (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Just started to test the prefix tag notation playground=climbing:slope. +handrail:center=yes in the example picture. Good question how to specifiy different "foot supports". --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
rope_ladder

http://hypftier.de/temp/2022-08-17_222940.jpg

playground climbing:pole

so far climbing_pole

node
  • tordans: Google image search for "climbing_pole" shows something different (free standing pole). I am using "firemans_pole" (or a variation of this). (Off topic: Great podcast on firemans poles)
    • Kann man das so klar unterscheiden, ob man an der Stange nun nach oben klettert oder von oben nach unten rutscht? Ist das nicht eher für beide Richtungen gedacht? ;) Die klassische "Kletterstange" zum Klettern nach oben, wie ich sie noch aus dem Sportunterricht kenne, scheint es auch so kaum (noch) zu geben. "firemans pole" suggeriert für mich eher die nach-unten-Rutsch-Bewegung, was mir zu exklusiv wäre. Letztendlich sollte dieser Tag für Stangen aller Art zum Klettern/Rutschen geeignet sein. --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    • noch ein Argument für climbing_pole: Ist bereits bei fitness_station=* dokumentiert. --Supaplex030 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
climbing_pole
playground stepping node way area ... Trittsteine (bisher stepping_stone/stepping_stones - Achtung: Dokumentiert ist auch fitness_station=stepping_stone) oder -stangen
  • Subtag: stepping=stone/log/pole
stepping
stepping
playground steps node way area ... Usually part of a structure.
steps
playground ladder node ...
ladder
playground tire_swing node way ... Reifenschaukel. Besser: playground=swing mit Subtags? ([playground:]swing=tire/basket...).
tire_swing
playground rope_swing node way tordans: Ein "Raupenschwinger" (Quelle, Quelle), im Englischen scheinbar einfach "rope swing" (Quelle)
  • Cool! Gibts auch schon 10 mal. Kennst du sowas irgendwo, um ein eigenes Foto zu machen? Finde bei Wikimedia Commons nichts dieser Art im engeren Sinne. --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
http://hypftier.de/temp/2022-08-17_225113.jpg
playground artwork sculpture node tordans: [sculpture] Eine Skulptur auf einem Spielplatz. Beispiel
  • Genau sowas meinte ich (unten) mit artwork - was ich die bessere Wahl fände, da man mit artwork_type=* im gängigen OSM-Schema auch weitere Formen über Skulpturen hinaus abbilden könnte (insbesondere sculpture, statue, installation...). --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
playground monkey_bars node way

Horizontal bars or hoops above head height to hang from by one's hands and move over hand over hand.

Exists in both singular and plural forms right now; I've typically chosen the plural, since a single bar would be horizontal_bar and monkey bars are never really singular.

Playground monkey bars 02.jpg
Playground monkey bars.jpg
Playground monkey bars, hoops.jpg
playground sand or sand_play node way area

General idea for sand-based equipment. I'm open for discussion on whether that makes sense. We probably wouldn't want to tag those excavator-thingies with this, despite them being designed to move sand around. And sandpit is already established as well, which would fit nicely here. Sub tags:

  • sieve
  • bucket_on_chain (those exist both vertically and horizontally)
  • chute
  • excavator
  • ...
chute:
Playground sand chute.jpg
sieve:
Playground sand sieve.jpg
Playground sieve.jpg
wheel:
Playground sand wheel.jpg
Playground equipment sand wheel.jpg
bucket:
Playground bucket on chain, horizontal.jpg
seesaw:
Playground sand seesaw.jpg

sand:

sand_play:

playground excavator node way area A small play excavator, allowing to move sand (or that rounded fine gravel) around a bit. Always fixed in place. Sometimes unpowered as just a series of metal linkages controlling the excavator bucket. Sometimes powered and then usually fenced off to avoid injury as well as with fee=yes.
excavator
playground crane node way area Seen only once so far; perhaps too rare to document. Similar to powered little excavators that was a crane, with fee, allowing to stack some boxes in a fenced-off area.
Image requested
playground water node way area Sub tags:
  • pump
  • channel
  • stream
  • seesaw
  • basin
  • barrier
  • archimedes_screw
  • wheel
  • cannon
  • sprinkler
pump:
water_pump
channel:
water_channel
stream:
water_stream
seesaw:
water_seesaw
barrier:
water_barrier
basin:
basin
basin:
basin with drain and plug
archimedes_screw:
water_archimedes_screw
wheel:
water_wheel
cannon:
water_cannon
sprinkler:
water_sprinkler
playground hammock node way area ...
hammock
playground chalk_board node A board to draw on with chalk or something similar.
ride
playground ride node A fixed installation to sit on.
ride
playground platform node area A raised platform. May be part of or similar to a structure in that bridges or other equipment may be attached. Unlike structures, platforms have neither roofs, walls nor handholds around them. They may appear as part of structures, though, to micromap individual levels with their heights.
Well, differentiation to structure may be difficult after all. I'd probably say that this: File:Playground low platform with handrail.jpg is a platform, not a structure, but then I need a better way to distinguish them. Although that just as well be a structure, too, I guess, just without roof, with only one attached other device, and not very tall. --Ygramul (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
platform
platform
playground table node area A play table. Typically not sized for adults to sit at. May include benches and can thus share similar tags as picnic tables.
table
  • balance
  • bump
  • climbing
  • rotator
  • rotator_stick (Foto)
  • megaphone
  • seat
  • track
  • tordans: "Hamsterrad" (Quelle)
  • 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)

*tordans: Eine Röhre aus Beton durch die Kinder durchlaufen/krabbeln können :: Ist mit playground=tunnel_tube bereits dokumentiert und in Verwendung. --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (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, 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)
  • "dome"
War mir nicht sicher, ob diese Halbkugel (siehe Foto unten bei den Beispielen) zu speziell ist oder häufiger mal vorkommt. Hast du sowas schonmal woanders oder auf den Seiten der Spielgerätehersteller gesehen? Zum Begriff "dome" finde ich außerdem nur halbkugelförmige Klettergerüste... --Supaplex030 (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • tordans: playground=picnic_table, wie ein Picknick Table aber für Kinder auf dem Spielplatz. Meist ein Tisch mit 4 Sitzen.
Klingt gut. Müssen wir mit seat und table synchronisieren bzw. diese nur verwenden, wenn es keine Sitzgruppe mit beiden Formen ist.

Translation-Sammlung

  • springy sollte den term "Wipptiere" bekommen (wenn nicht schon vorhanden)

Gute Recherche-Quellen

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.

Example Gallery

To be discussed

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
Playground tall rotating pad.jpg
A large rotating pad to stand or sit on. Perhaps similar to playground=rotator_stick above, just integrated into a structure. --Ygramul (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Playground rope or tire swing.jpg
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)
Playground balance or pole swing.jpg
Playground balance or pole swing 2.jpg
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)

Further tagging ideas

  • More/better documentation about how to map certain things as non-nodes. Nodes are probably always centered on the object. For way-like objects (balance beam, slide, zipway, etc.) ways are fairly self-evident. However, I've been mapping swings typically as ways that follow the bar on which the swings are mounted, which then is perpendicular to the swinging direction. Perhaps that's okay, but perhaps we can give more guidance for specific examples. A simple sentence like the common »how to map« instruction is probably enough. Ygramul (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Detailed mapping of structures can be somewhat complicated, although one could probably take a few pointers from mapping buildings (both indoor and outdoor). This could include both things like parts, roofs, levels, height/min_height, equipment inside the structure (like ladders leading upwards, or table and benches in the lowest floor, etc.). Ygramul (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Structures may not be as regular as normal buildings and levels may not be evenly distributed. Adding things like platforms inside structures to also keep the height may work. However, would we want something like structure:part=* for those things and still tag them additionally as playground=*? Probably better to not complicate data usage for typical use cases. --Ygramul (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I have assumed so far that the belonging of a device to a structure results geometrically if it is mapped within or on the line of a structure. But I think this 3D mapping topic needs its own thinking, preferably with a simple example (we need Simple 3D Playgrounds ;) --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • We should probably suggest a lot more detail tags, even for established values. For lots of things height or width can make sense. Slides are sometimes already tagged with incline. Perhaps there are a bunch of interesting characteristics for certain equipment that makes sense to at least be able to tag. Many mappers don't invent tags if the Wiki doesn't suggest them and if we get a good sense of the variations for certain equipment here, that may simplify deciding what details would be warranted. Ygramul (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
height is often a good one for various things: Total height of a slide, height of a balancing rope (although would we want the highest or the lowest height for that? One playground here has variance of 50 cm for a balancing rope between highest and lowest point), height of platforms, height of structures, hanging height for monkey bars (probably most sensible to use the height at which the hands would grab), height of horizontal bars, height of a seesaw (may inform suitability for different ages), ... --Ygramul (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I've always tagged a "mean" height so far, but can't remember any equipment where the height varies a lot. Vorteil: If you define the height as "mean height" and also use "incline" (and get the length from the geometry or a tag), you can calculate the maximum and minimum height. --Supaplex030 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Mean height sounds good for things like hanging bridges or balancing ropes, but terribly unintuitive for slides, for example. Also height commonly refers to the elevation of the highest point of a feature, so perhaps that's still the best interpretation. The combination of height (as maximum height) with incline would also allow to calculate the minimum height (although that one could be tagged as well, if desired, e.g. for slopes that don't start at ground level). --Ygramul (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
You're absolutely right - on a slide, of course, I also mean the highest point. Then let's define that as the "highest" point later. --Supaplex030 (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Sub tagging 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)