[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 07:51, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above 7. 
> 
> None of the higher values is used very frequently, and it’s impossible for me to remember which each one means, especially the values from 21 to 27.
> 
> I think it would be easier for everyone if we created new tags for specific things like protected recreation areas, protected historic or cultural sites and protected sacred sites, as has been done with boundary=aboriginal_lands


+1, number codes are not a good solution if human mappers should assign them, even less if they aren’t about a gradation (like tracktype) and if there are a lot of them (harder to remember, like protected area types).

The fact the scheme wasn’t completed in all those years since 2011 doesn’t make it more appealing.
While being presented on a long page with lots of information (hence appearing to be exhaustive), if you actually want to classify an area it frequently happens that the definitions are not sufficient for describing the kind of protection and distinguishing it from other similar protected areas

Cheers Martin