[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Mon Aug 5 04:23:20 UTC 2019

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg
<joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the tag is more precisely defined. While you are using this tag specifically for recreation related protected areas, the current wiki page says that it can be used for
> 3 options:
> 1) make a proposal to redefine the meaning of [...]
> 2) make a proposal for a new protect_class [...]
> 3) create a new tag, [...]

OK, so here we appear to stand.

Nobody appears to have a substantive objection to considering state
parks as protected areas. The chief objection appears to be that the
existing numeric scheme for protection categories is non-mnemonic and
awkward (to which I agree wholeheartedly!)

I had earnestly hoped to avoid the pain of coming up with a tagging
proposal, in favor of codifying 'best current practice' for tagging
state parks (and, it is hoped, quieting some of the arguments about
it, which had grown quite heated). In fact, before posting here, I'd
ran the proposal by a handful of the most strident users in the
arguments, and actually managed to elicit agreement in principle. My
hope was that a new tagging scheme would be Out Of Scope for the
current discussion.

Nevertheless, the dissatisfaction with the numeric labels will, as far
as I can tell, sink any hope of getting these objects rendered, and
will likely lead to further unproductive arguments on the Wiki.
Accordingly, it appears necessary, however distasteful I find it, to
propose a relabeling of protection classes before considering any
proposal to tag state parks and similar features to be in its final
form.  Accordingly, I'm starting to draft such a proposal at

So far, I've just sketched a set of values that correspond to the
common (95% or so) cases that 'taginfo' turns up. As with any key
we've ever identified, there are outlier values that cannot really be
addressed (typos, invented values, multiple values, and a variety of
nearly inexplicable things).

Most of the sections are still stubbed; of course, I can grind out
text for them, I just haven't done it yet. I've most likely got some
of the details wrong in what I have written. That's why it's called a
'draft' - please assume that I'm approaching this with good will.

I'm also rather poor at the Naming of Names. I'm hoping against hope
that this idea will not founder on fine details of word choice.
Clearly, not every value will please everyone.

Suggestions are, of course, welcome, bearing in mind the above caveats.

More information about the Tagging mailing list