[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 13:40:29 UTC 2019


On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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?
>

I don't know if I would or not because I didn't examine it in any detail
after seeing the
numeric values.  The numeric values convinced me it was a non-starter, so I
didn't
investigate further.

I have no objection to using it as optional, supplemental information about
an object tagged
in some other way.  Much the same as opening_hours or the UK Food Hygiene
Rating Scheme
ID with fhrd:id=n.  I can add those, but I don't have to.  With that sort
of usage I could even
live with numeric values for protect_class (I doubt I'd ever add one
because it's too much
like hard work figuring out what number to use, but if I encountered one
I'd not remove it).

I have a problem with the numeric values if you intend this to be a
top-level tag for an object,
replacing other ways of tagging such an object.  In that situation, numeric
values are (for me) a
no-go.

I suspect whatever you come up with may have to be usable as both top-level
and supplemental,
to cater for all sorts of existing objects which already have existing
schemes but which also
fall under an IUCN class.  In the UK, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
Nature Reserves,
Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Registered Historic Landscapes
come to mind.  There
are others.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190729/b5eda9c6/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list