[Tagging] Is landuse=conservation actually deprecated?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Dec 26, 2020, 02:37 by gdt at lexort.com:

>
> Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Is it correct to say that landuse=conservation has been deprecated,
>> practically, by boundary=protected_area
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area>, even
>> though that tag has not been approved?
>>
>
> Brief points (since I've said this before):
>
>  landuse=conservation means that the primary human use of the land is
>  to preserve it in a natural state.  It is not necessary for any legal
>  protected_area status to apply for this to be true.
>
Note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/conservation
has yet another different definition, that is about legal protection
"Conservation land is land protected from development."

Or is it outdated and it is universally used with meaning that you mention?

Looking through
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dconservation&action=history
it was either redirect to that proposal or since 2017 a deprecation claim.

Given that deprecation edit links no discussion, and that there is no
clear support for that I edited it into form easier to
edit (sadly, due to data items it is quite tricky and requires
action=purge hacks)

Feel free to improve it, right now I linked original proposal,
deprecation edit and this mailing list thread.

>  Therefore, while most land that is boundary=protected_area should also
>  be landuse=conservation
>
I am not convinced that it would be useful to double tag in this way.

>  I have always felt that the deprecation was by fiat of the people
>  pushing boundary=protected_area, with no real discussion, no vote, and
>  no legitimacy.
>
At least noone linked anything like that so far so I reverted deprecation
claim.

>  The entire situation o this alleged deprecation has felt nasty
>  socially to at least me and I think others in Massachusetts where we
>  have been using landuse=conservation for a long time.  Basically "we
>  aren't listening; you are wrong, and we are going to revert your local
>  mapper work that follows local consensus".
>
If someone marks tag as deprecated without explanation and
without discussion and there is opposition to that
- then posting to tagging (or just editing wiki) is likely a good idea.

Like it was done in
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-December/056769.html

>  It is a real problem that this alleged deprecation has made its way
>  into editors
>
https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema - iD issue tracker
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Action/ReportBug - how to report
JOSM bug

> The wiki should document existing use.
>
+1 (and there are proposals for documenting proposed changes)  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201226/b6eab6f7/attachment.htm>