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

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 11:38:10 UTC 2020


Andrew, would you please repeat this analysis with all features tagged
"protect_class=2" which have a wikidata tag?

I suspect that many of those will not match according to Wikidata.

On 4/6/20, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



More information about the Tagging mailing list