[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 12:50:57 UTC 2019

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own system, while it should ideally allow to distinguish all the IUCN classes, it doesn’t mean we cannot have more qualifiers, if they seem useful.

We return to the original idea proposed at the very start of this
thread: 'protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation' for these
features. Except for the ugliness of using numeric values for
protect_class, it sounds as if you might agree with the original idea?

> For the Italian situation, a distinction for many protected areas by national, regional (al 4), provincial (al 6) and municipal (al 8) seems to make a lot of sense. If it doesn’t apply (e.g. not a protected area by the competent government), don’t put admin_level.

Sure. I have no problem with admin_level. If you want to tag,
admin_level=4 on state parks, be my guest! It's just a little
distracting, because it doesn't actually address the issue (a area
protected for diverse recreational uses, partaking of park,
recreation_ground, nature_reserve, and a few other things) but with a
single enclosing boundary, and a single name.

More information about the Tagging mailing list