[Tagging] Planned rendering changes of protected areas

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 03.12.2017 o 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
> I’m against both proposals (for the current situation, but with more changes to the whole system it might change), for 1 it was demonstrated that there are cases of nature reserves which aren’t protected areas according to osm tag definitions

There was a lot of comments, so I might miss something - could you 
remind these cases?

I think I have shown that nature reserve is always about protection (but 
not about leisure, so current namespace is wrong).

> and for 2 I believe simple and self explanatory tagging is preferable over more complicated, not human readable, equally detailed alternative tagging

Having only simple tagging makes it hard to create any meaningful 
classification system.

For admin levels we also use some "magic" numbers instead of human 
readable tags ("state", "province", "county") and that system is 
working. It also is easier to parse, hence consume the data.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Applec