Addition of Standard: Playgrounds

[SkeenP-NGSC]

Playground data could be considered unique, in that its more than just a facility. Would benifit from some sort of link with parks and open spaces section.

---

category: Spatial path: '/playgrounds'

title: 'Playgrounds'

Playgrounds 0.1

Playgrounds are areas for play :)

General recommendations

	Recommendation
Format	CSV, GeoJSON
Dataset name	[Council name] playgrounds
data.gov.au tags	opencouncildata, playgrounds

Required fields

Field	Description
lat	Latitude
lon	Longitude

Recommended fields

Field	Description
name	Name of playground (if named)
location	Textual description of playground location
address	Address of park hosting the playground
owned_by	The council name, or other organisation, that owns the playground.
managed_by	The council name, or other organisation, that manages the playground.

Optional fields

Field	Description
image_url	Picture of playground
info_url	URL of playground
construction	Construction type (Timber, Metal, etc)
surface	Construction type of the ground surface (Rubber Matting, Mulch, etc)
area	Playground area
fallheight_min	The minimum fall height of the play equipment
fallheight_max	The maximum fall height of the play equipment
age_min	The minimum age of play equiptment at the play ground
age_max	The maximum age of play equiptment at the play ground
access_cmt	Additional comments about accessibility, such as if the toilets are inside a building that is difficult to access.

[CloCkWeRX]

These are probably better as polygons/multipolygons - lat/lon is OK for some, but more complex playgrounds may spread over some distance.

Area can then be inferred.

Other examples of schema in the wild: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dplayground

[SkeenP-NGSC]

That was an oversight on my part, assumed points were all that was used to reference playground locations. On checking our asset database however, its in there as polygon.

One drawback of polygon is that it might limit uptake in councils with a lower GIS capacity.

[barretthigman]

Can this standard be published? I'm looking to publish our playgrounds on data.gov.au and this would be very useful. A couple of comments:

1. Polygons are preferable from my point of view
2. A park name field would be useful, especially where the playground itself doesn't have a name, or is this covered by the 'location' field?
3. A component list might be a good optional field eg. swing;slide;combination unit;climbing frame;spring rider, etc.
4. An optional component list of accessible equipment eg. swing;carousel, etc
5. If the playground is to be represented as a polygon then the area field would not be required

Thanks for getting this started!

[SkeenP-NGSC]

I'm happy with polygons for this standard, after publishing Northern Grampians via their asset system they were all already in polygon format so made it easy. Currently i store the components in a seperate CSV file but that has its problems, I like your idea of an optional field for this purpose.