[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sun Aug 18 13:42:19 UTC 2019


Kevin,

The proposal looks pretty good.

When you've finished editing, please make a clear list off all the
new, proposed tags, in one place. Also please clarify what pages are
being edited and if protect_class=* is being deprecated by this
proposal.

It might make sense to deprecate all values of protect_class other
than 1 to 6, since those numbers at least correspond to the IUCN
numbers and most are fairly commonly used, while the higher numbers
are rare and confusing. Over time, if protection_class becomes much
more popular, the protect_class:1 to 6 might also become obsolete, but
for the short term it might be difficult to change them all right
away.

One thing is that you write in one place that
protection_class=condition should maybe just be
protection_class=hazard, to replace the current protect_class=15 and
16, "Location Condition" and "Longtime Hazard Area". I think this
makes sense.

Re: protect_class=24, "Political protection", you might need to talk
to the folks in Brazil who are using this tag. Not all of them were
happy with using boundary=aborignal_lands instead, if I recall
correctly, but perhaps this could change.

Thanks for working on this. I think it's worth doing, since most of
the protect_class values have never really become used, and their
meaning is not very clear.

On 8/18/19, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> .As has already been discussed at some length in the thread on tagging
> of State Parks in the US, I've been working on a proposal for a
> 'protection_class=*' key to replace 'protect_class=*'. It replaces the
> seven numeric codes from IUCN (plus a zoo of codes that OSM appears to
> have cut out of whole cloth) with 'protection_object=*', whose values
> are drawn from a group of word-oriented codes that, it is hoped, will
> be more mnemonic. (The proposal to describe State Parks as protected
> areas was reasonably well received except for the issue that it
> depended on the numeric 'protect_class=*' to describe the protection.)
>
> The proposal has now reached a state where I think it can be opened
> for a formal RFC, and can be found at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas
> .
>
> Of course, I'll monitor both this list and the talk page for the Wiki
> page for comments, and try to address whatever comes up.
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list