[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 14:34:43 UTC 2019



sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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. 


we do have an established numbered scheme for admin_levels, it could be reused to tag the administrative level that instituted the protected area, for a state park it would have the value 4, the key could remain “admin_level” also in the context of boundary=protected_area

It seems straightforward.

The kind of protection could be readable words, like nature, or birds, or culture, or water, air etc. (we’ll see what is needed when we do it). Don’t know for the key, it seems reasonable not to reuse protect_class. Maybe 
“protected:for”
or the no underscore/colon variant:
“protection” and the goods/qualities that are protected as value.

For specific kind of sites (e.g. protected under a specific international treaty) we could have specific tags to identify them if desired, e.g. protection_context=natura2000
or
protection_context=state_park
(not sure the latter would be adding information if there was already an admin_level=4 tag)

or from current (modest) usage, it could be “related_law” https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=natura2000#values

Cheers Martin 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190728/86e34672/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list