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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Thu Aug 29 16:49:23 UTC 2019

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:06 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> strokes'.
> I just thought I'd let you know how broad some of those strokes will have to
> be. :)

Uhm, I already knew that.  :)

Some of the legal classifications in some jurisdictions don't actually
inform about what sort of resource is being protected. In the US,
'State Park' often flaas under a single establishing law, and doesn't
inform about the specific protection, which can be anything from a
wilderness area to an urban swimming beach or a public golf course -
or even a brownfield (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6539925
and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439630427; oddly appropriate
somehow!). Protection status is just as weird and fragmentary in the
US as it is in the UK, but there has to be *something* to help a
general-interest data consumer sort things out. I assure you that I
deal with suppressing the complexity all the time.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/7811.html is only a *partial* list of the
sorts of public lands that I encounter. Those are adminstered by the
New York State Department of Environmental Protection. There are
others administred by Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, or
by other state departments, or the Federal government, or local
governmnents, or NGO's. I'm trying to chart the middle course of
'useful although necessarily imprecise abstraction'.

(Earlier in the thread, I mentioned tagging the Catskill and
Adirondack Parks in New York as 'national_park' and not apologizing.
Someone replied to me giving Pembrokeshire Coast National Park as a UK
precedent for a 'national park that isnt a National Park, and it's

'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but needs batteries,
you probably have the wrong abstraction.' - B. Liskov

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

More information about the Tagging mailing list