[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 13:43:11 UTC 2019



sent from a phone

> On 29. Jul 2019, at 14:50, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?


sure


> 
>> 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.


Maybe you can see (and map) the state park as one thing and the nature reserve within it as another? For the state park you would need to say it is a state park and has this name and or number (usually there will be an identifier, maybe it’s not strictly necessary). The nature reserve within would already be spatially connected, but if it is an explicit constituent part of the park that would maybe be too weak? Is the nature reserve managed by the state or a different government level?

Cheers Martin 


More information about the Tagging mailing list