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

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

This proposal sounds good in the field of knowledge it covers and I would
certainly go for it when vote will be open.

I've noticed a potential conflict with protection degrees defined in IEC
60529 norm (IP-XY numbers seen on many electronic appliances), also called
"protection class".
Could you please consider this contribution to RFC please?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas#Potential_conflict_with_IEC_60529_degrees_of_protection

All the best

François

Le dim. 18 août 2019 à 15:43, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
a écrit :

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190828/37fe89eb/attachment.html>