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

[François Lacombe]

Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> a
écrit :

>
> 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
>

Current usage on OSM is clear and I don't question this
This proposal is an opportunity to be sure we're choosing the most
appropriate word regarding what the target is.


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

According to what Paul said, ingress_protection would be better.
ip_protection is redundant (p of protection + "protection")

Then we shouldn't have simple protection=* for this proposal but
xxxx_protection too.
As N of IUCN means Nature, what about nature_protection?

Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:05, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> a
écrit :

>
> 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.


Effort is appreciable, but there is no need to introduce namespace here
Currently I'd be in favour of removing at least _class or _type suffixes as
it doesn't bring additional information.

All the best

François
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190829/5122c679/attachment.html>