[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)
pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 16:04:18 UTC 2019
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 16:31, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Site of Special Scientific Interest.
> Does that actually specify what sort of protection the site enjoys?
Yes and no. It's complicated. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest is an
As applied to England (Scotland, Wales, etc. are somewhat different)
It's possible you could shoehorn SSSIs into an existing class or classes.
> Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
> protection_class(or protection_category per the earlier
Possibly. Probably. Maybe. :)
> World Heritage
> > Site and World Heritage Site Arcs of View. Registered Historic
> Landscape. Protected
> > Wreck. There are also scheduled monuments, but they're generally
> man-made and
> > dealt with by heritage=*.
> Most of these would fall under 'cultural', I think - they're not
> protecting a natural condition of the site but rather its cultural
The cultural significance can be one reason it is categorized as such, but
the other is
its natural beauty/aesthetic importance. Either way, it's legally
anyone could come along and trash it, ruining its status). See
Since the values are keywords, they should be endlessly expandable.
> Constraining ourselves to the IUCN numeric codes is one of the things
> that got us into this particular mess in the first place. I intend the
> set of keywords to be open-ended, but urge discipline so that data
> consumers don't need to deal with hundreds of variants for the details
> of each jurisdiction's law. This categorization should give the 'broad
I just thought I'd let you know how broad some of those strokes will have to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging