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

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 23:18:52 UTC 2019


Re: > change the key to 'protection_category='

That would be fine.

Re: > 'protected_area:category'

No thank you; no need to add :type or :category suffixes to keys. You
could use 'protected_area=*' as the key. It has the disadvantage of
already being used a couple of hundred times, but the current values
are not terrible:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/protected_area

But overall, I think protection_class=* is fine.

On 8/29/19, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list