I disagree. It is not the same.

This sign gives this small piece of land a name (the sign is an official sign of the town!) and separates it from (nature) areas next to it. Ad it is a valid and unique name in the geographic context of a playground (= normally a neighborhood), because there is no other „Spielplatz“.


Names are not UIDs in my opinion, and trying to define it very strictly in that direction is going in the wrong direction in my opinion. My very serious question about what the problem is was not answered.

And another reason: there are also playgrounds here (tagged as playground) that have a similar sign with the title “Spielwiese” (= just a grassy area) – so the name also has a reason and differentiates between different types of playgrounds.

And another question: how else should the title on the sign be tagged if NOT as a name? Something as name:signed=playground? (It wouldn't be okay if it was denied that it is a name). So you should invent a new tag (“Any tag you like”), e.g. "name_on_sign_not_fulfilling_too_strict_name_requirements=Spielplatz"? That's crazy ...

For me, a good comparison is a kiosk with the name „Kiosk“ or a small fast food truck with the name „Imbiss“ (= snack) – the owner decided to use this (descriptive) name, maybe because he didn't think it was important enough to give the small business a fancy name, but it is still the externally visible and used name of it.

That's really not the same like a sign "Toilet, 2 euro fee".

It's clear to me that there is a gray area when it comes to names where you can't say 100% clearly what a proper name is if a descriptive term has been used. And one should not try to eliminate this gray area through overly strict definitions that have something dogmatic about them.

And I simply don't see any problem with tagging a descriptive name as a name, as long as you haven't invented this descriptive name yourself, but there is clear evidence on site that a name was given for something.