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

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 22:58:34 UTC 2019

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 08:21, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 22:50, François Lacombe <fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Thats a detail, official document stands for International Protection
>> https://texa-co.ir/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IEC-60529.pdf (see §4 page
>> 18)
> You're right.  I've only ever encountered "IP" expanded as Ingress
> Protection, which makes
> sense.

It requires at least a strong context to not be confused with any other
>> protection classification system.
> To be honest, I'd not expect a national park to be protected from liquid
> or particulate ingress,
> nor an electrical enclosure to impose restrictions on building houses
> within it.  Nor do I expect
> even micro-mappers to document the IP rating of electrical enclosures they
> map.  The only
> thing we really need to worry about is namespace collision, and that's
> usually dealt with by
> a first-come/first-served approach.

I've just had a quick play on TagInfo & protect_class & protection_title,
plus a couple of others, all refer to protected areas of one type or another

>  If he can't, then anyone who needs to map the International
> Protection rating of electrical enclosures will have to come up with a
> different tag. :)

How about reserving IP_class or IP_protection? Would seem to cover it
nicely (especially if they're not actually used!)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190829/2f361e6b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list