[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 00:12:11 UTC 2019
On 29/08/19 09:21, François Lacombe wrote:
> Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> <graemefitz1 at gmail.com <mailto: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?
+1 for nature_protection. Says what it is?
> Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:05, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
> <mailto: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.
Class and type add nothing, don't use them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging