[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

[Andrew Davidson]

On 6/4/20 9:23 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> The only thing that the proposal page still needs is a couple more
> detailed definitions for some of the tags.

Maybe not. A quick read finds this statement:

protect_class=2 will be tagged as boundary=national_park (de facto)

This is a problem because boundary=national_park already exists as a 
generic tag for a conservation area. A quick survey of all of the 
existing boundary=national_park with a wikidata link finds the following 
range of IUCN Protected Area Categories:

Class  Count
IA       95
IB       70
II      848
III      74
IV      277
V       234
VI      159
Total  1757

So less than 50% of "National Parks" are Cat II.

I would suggest adding protection_class=national_park and dropping the 
suggestion of using boundary=national_park.