Am 22.07.2014 18:58, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > 2014-07-22 18:31 GMT+02:00 Никита <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > Hello everyone! Target minage (age_group) should be different from > legal minage (current tag min_age). > > > > generally agree (there might be exceptions etc., and it really is not > a strictly legal restriction but more kind of a guideline in the cases > I know of). Still as mentioned before, for schools and kindergartens > there is ISCED level as a tag for an international standard. But ISCED doesn't define an age. It just says "this is a kindergarten", but not: "this kindergarten admits children who are <insert an age> or older" for example. In my opinion there should be some tag (let it be age_group, or min_age:usage or something else).
This was exactly what I meant in my initial mail, where I invented min_age:usage and min_age:admission for this purpose. A casino or betting office might have legal restrictions, which prevent underage people from entering. But a school, kindergarten or playground normally has not, otherwise e.g. parents would be locked out of these places. Normally you can decide, if it's a legal restriction by looking at the type of amenity (playground => guidline, casino => legal), but I could imagine, there are edge cases (maybe adventure-playground with legal restrictions for people under some age, because it's too dangerous). But overall I'm currently quite happy with the non-differentiating solution. Cheers, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
