[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 15:34:32 UTC 2019


While admin_level is numeric, they numbers are already widely known,
so it would be fine to reuse the tag admin_level=4 to specify the
administrative level of a certain protected area, I think, especially
if the operator=* is not the same.

> 'strict_nature_reserve', 'wilderness_area',
'national_park' (already used), 'natural_monument', 'habitat',
'protected_landscape', 'sustainable_resource_use_area

Great idea. I can actually remember those. Perhaps we can create
specific wiki pages for each of the protect_class=1 to 6 and add those
definitions, to help out taginfo and editors like iD and JOSM. I would
also probably vote for a proposal that added new tags like
*=wilderness_area, *=natural_monument, and deprecated protect_class.

There will need to be synonyms for 11 to 19 as well, since these are
used in some countries according to the table, as well as for at least
a few of the Social/Cultural ones.

Are you feeling up to writing a big proposal, Kevin? It may be a lot a
work and probably requires consulting with other communities (like
German at least), but I think you have the persistence to get it done.

Joseph

On 7/29/19, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 15:36, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> I'm not entirely happy with admin_level.  It's numbers, so you have to read
> the wiki to figure out
> what admin_level=4 is.  I view it as a historical accident that we should
> avoid repeating, not a
> template for good taq design.
>
> The kind of protection could be readable words, like nature, or birds, or
>> culture, or water, air etc.
>>
>
> A lot better than numbers.  Still has problems, such as some objects will
> need to have a list
> of values because it serves multiple purposes, but better than
> randomly-assigned numbers.
>
> --
> Paul
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list