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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:21 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>> Let's see if Kevin wishes to take care of this
>
> If he can, that would be good.  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. :)

As Paul observes, the collision seems pretty far-fetched. I'm sure
that there are all sorts of non-geographic things that are protected
from something or other and may admit of classes of protection. I
can't imagine any of those being associated with a
boundary=protected_area (or national_park, or aboriginal_lands), and I
don't intend 'protection_class' to stand alone.

I _am_ tempted to change the name to 'protection_category' because
that's IUCN's term, and then discuss on the Wiki that 'recreation',
'culture', and 'hazard' expand upon the IUCN vocabulary to encompass
types of protection that the International Union for the Conservation
of *Nature* does not recognize (these protections, in general, apply
to sites that are substantially altered from a natural state and for
which returning them to a natural state may not be an objective).

If people insist, I'd go to 'protected_area:category', but I consider
that to be rather too verbose, and I'm not sure that it's worth it to
avoid the minimal risk of namespace pollution.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin