This seems very much incorrect to me as a name should be used for a name only. Example; name=Jumbo or name=Winnie.
OSM wiki quote, “The names should be restricted to the name of the item in question only and should not include additional information not contained in the official name such as categories, types, descriptions, addresses, refs, or notes.“
An African Elephant is a type of elephant, not the name of an elephant. A White Lion is a type of lion, not the name of a lion.
I plan to make edits to the wiki pages concerning this, but I thought I’d toss this idea out there for comment. I’ll also post this on the discussion page. I post this here because the discussion pages don’t seem to attract much discussion.
When I tag an animal attraction at a zoo, I use the tags, for example, tourism=attraction, attraction=animal, animal=lion.
However, on the wiki page; Tag: tourism=zoo, a user is directed to use, for example, name=African Elephant.
it is kind of a shortcut, generally what we tag is not just the animal but the compound for the animal. IMHO tourism=attraction for all kind of animal compounds in a zoo is born from tagging for the renderer, which is still ongoing in many places. E.g. here you can see a beach with the name polar bear (11 years ago) which has meanwhile become a bare rock with the same name
for me attraction=animal is ok as a tag for an (implicit) compound in a zoo (used 11.5k times), although it has issues as it doesn’t allow to distinguish animals in a cage from those running around “freely”, or the type of enclosure (e.g. aviary), but tourism=attraction on every single item seems overkill.
To tag the kind of animal in the compound, we could reuse the tags from plant tagging (“species” / “taxon”, localized if desired). With the name I would refer to the compound, e.g. “elephant enclosure” , “ape house”