[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 12:03:32 UTC 2019


On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 02:36, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> I'm on board with a state park specific tag.  I find protect class to be a
> clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like
> leisure=state_park
>

+1

I have no objections to protect_class as supplemental information that data
consumers can make
use of as they wish (including ignoring it).  I have an intense dislike of
numbers being used for
anything other than numeric values because they are not amenable to human
inspection.  Sure,
editors can unobfuscate things by using an internal lookup table, but that
isn't a complete solution.
Compare an overpass-turbo query for leisure=state_park and for
protect_class=21.  Use the query
tool of standard carto and ask yourself how easy it would be to guess what
is meant by
leisure=state_park versus protect_class=21.  Look at the raw tags in the
editor (something I
frequently do, for one reason or another) and see if leisure=state_park
makes more or less
sense than protect_class=21.

But if we insist that protect_class=21 is a sensible solution, then so is
replacing all existing
top=level tags with things like object=Q1234 and object=Q9876.  Well, that
doesn't cope with
values, so we'd have to replace building=house with object=Q1234 +
Q1234=Q9876.
Obviously (I hope) this is not a sensible solution, but it is merely a
logical extension of
the thinking that gives us protect_class=21 as a top-level tag.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190728/b742c629/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list