<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Wrong subject line ? I think this belongs in
"[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations (Was "Feature Proposal
- RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations")".</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"> If you resubmit can you include links to
"the others" ? I think it's a good point and deserves at least
discussion.</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/02/2021 02:45, Michael Patrick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAC54+E4dwmcsA_12=ERd1POdK3wmCXPqSME7+QAhJ6v-RyBLwg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I would push back in the strongest possible terms against
increasing the use of "invented" values of protect_class
(anything outside of 1a, 1b, 2-6). The 1a,1b,2-6 values are
based on IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of
Nature) protected area categories, which categorize the
management practices of land used for nature conservation.
... However, the other values (1, 7-99) were pure inventions
by early wiki authors and have absolutely no basis in any
classification system, are poorly defined, and use numbers
rather than plain-English words. .... replacing them
with plain-English tagging for hazards, special economic
zones, and military bases respectively. In those votes,
there was very strong support for abandoning this invented
numbering system.<br>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>The 'invented' tags were an inevitable consequence of
selecting a classification system IUCN, which by its own
description was very narrow in scope. <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">If 'inventing' a classification system isn't
desirable, and adopting an external classification system
like IUCN was acceptable, why not repurpose one that was
actually designed from the ground up by an international
community of stakeholders, including lawyers, scientists,
planners, economists that's now been tested over a couple
of decades, which addresses every semantic case of Land
cover and Land Use that's been mentioned. <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">Or at a minimum, compare a proposed system to
existing ones, on the off chance all those people may have
thought through some difficulties and resolved them. One
is the EU INSPIRE ( example <a
href="https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/theme/am"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/theme/am</a>
and <a
href="https://eurogeographics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2.-INSPIRE-Specification_Lena_0.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://eurogeographics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2.-INSPIRE-Specification_Lena_0.pdf</a>
), there are others. If you skim through these other
models, it is fairly easy to understand why they divided
the concepts the way they did, and how they build in
extensions and room for more detail. </div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>