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

Warin 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...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190829/c49d475e/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list