[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting -, boundary=aboriginal_lands
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 07:58:31 UTC 2018
sent from a phone
> On 30. Nov 2018, at 00:27, Doug Hembry <doughembry at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> +1 (mostly). The boundary=protected_area scheme allows rough/detail tagging to some degree, I think. I presume you can specify b=p_area without adding p_class if you wish
yes, you can do it, but then the tag says too little, because it could be anything from a protected habitat of a rare kind of frog to an historic house (heritage) to a national monument, to a national forest, to a water or air protection area, etc.
What I meant was that the basic level of tagging should already specify something “meaningful”.
More information about the Tagging