[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands
doughembry at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 29 21:48:41 UTC 2018
On 29. Nov 2018, at 10:40, Daniel Koć wrote:
I was trying to use this in my first approach to protected areas, but I have found that only protection_level numbers were standardized. Others are (mostly) human readable mess, for example: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=protection_title#values
I would love to just render "nature-protected-area" (because this is the abstraction level I need), but in practice I had to define a list: tags->'protect_class' IN ('1','1a','1b','2','3','4','5','6','7','97','98','99')
It's perfectly usable, but just not elegant and not human readable.
Would you also render boundary=protected_area if protect_class=* is absent entirely? I think this would be a good idea.
It's highly desirable that someone can do a rough tagging of a protected area before they know much about it (or don't care) and later (maybe someone else) can come along and add the protect_class=* tag. (Though maybe protect_title should be required). If this means the boundary rendering defaults to a green border, that sounds OK IMO.
(If it's too late, and the code is written and tested.... ignore this note..:-))
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging