[Tagging] Hunting area tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Yves <yvecai at gmail.com> wrote:

> Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what about
> defining hunting = as a permission tag, and invent a new polygon type
> dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other polygon is
> suitable to add this tag to?
>

I think that's a fine idea, and I think (rereading
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area) that
'boundary=protected_area protect_class=14 protection_object=hunting' would
be eminently appropriate if there's no other polygon type available. I see
that 'protect_class=14' is documented to mean '*species:* no fishing,
protected for fishery, *protected for hunting*, plants, ... ' (italics
mine), which sounds just like what's intended.

I used 'hunting=*' with the New York City conservation lands import, along
with 'trapping=*' and 'fishing=*'.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304831 is an example of the full set
of tags.

I didn't come up with a formal proposal, because then I'd have to think
harder about what the default values ought to be; Sorry, I'm lazy! I
mentioned the tags in the import proposal, and nobody complained.

The issue of defaults is a tough one.For instance, all State Forests in New
York allow hunting, with the exception that the ones in Regions 1-3 require
specific authorization to hunt there. All allow fishing wherever there's a
suitable waterbody. When I did the New York State lands, I didn't trouble
with those tags. Perhaps I should have, since it's not immediately obvious
what particular locale-dependent assumptions ought to be made. Food for
thought.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20161024/11538376/attachment.html>