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

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 23:21:29 UTC 2019

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

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

More information about the Tagging mailing list