(part 2 of 4)

I try to write a little more, but then I've had enough, I don't have the energy to discuss this any further.

What I would find helpful, for example: if you tried to specify the definition of what is meant by a “name” in the OSM sense with the clearest possible criteria, for example of which a certain minimum number must apply (perhaps similar to the WHO does it with its “International Classification of Diseases – ICD” – which is also constantly being revised?). Then we could discuss it. The core question: when is something a name and when is it not? I would be interested. However, I don't think you will succeed in doing this very well, or much better than the current definition, which in my opinion comes quite close to reality with its references to exceptions etc. And I know I'm on the edge, but not completely outside the current definition. It is what is generally called a gray area.

I would also find it crucial to answer the question I already asked: What is the problem here? What harm does it do if an area that has a sign labeled “playground” gets such a name tag? No, I certainly don't tag for the renderer, quite the opposite - I've probably already tagged 10,000 details that will never be displayed on any renderer. But I also have no problem with the text “Playground” being displayed on a playground area (e.g. on OSM Carto).

I think your problem (or point of view) is that in cases like this you tend to understand the term “playground” as a classification or a “category” that is expressed on the sign – that’s how it is. But I would argue that some terms can be both a classification/category AND a name in the local environment of the object - see the example "Kiosk".