[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations (Was "Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations")

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 12:50 PM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
<bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as forestry, as a process, is concerned it's general characteristics can be defined with an (already) defined protection class: f.i. 15 - as a resources-protected-area or some of the nature-protected-area classes. I am perfectly happy with the definitions of the protection classes as they are not specific, neither discriminating, which, to my opinion is not the case if you specifically are going to use the term "forestry".

> This leads me to my positive support of this proposal as it attempts to deprecate landuse=forest and all its commotion that has grown around it in competition with natural=wood. That I fully support but replace it with a non-discriminating, already existing but hardly used value like protect_class=15. I propose to make a specific wiki page for protect_class = 15 and add attribution for a specific sector or use case.

I would push back in the strongest possible terms against increasing
the use of "invented" values of protect_class (anything outside of 1a,
1b, 2-6).  The 1a,1b,2-6 values are based on IUCN (International Union
for the Conservation of Nature) protected area categories, which
categorize the management practices of land used for nature
conservation.

However, the other values (1, 7-99) were pure inventions by early wiki
authors and have absolutely no basis in any classification system, are
poorly defined, and use numbers rather than plain-English words.  In
addition, the standard renderer has rejected the rendering of bespoke
values of this tag.  The number of usages of protect_class=15 is so
small (<100) that we should not consider this a meaningful adoption of
this tag by the community.

I should also note that in the last several months, a series of
approved proposals have formally deprecated protect_class values 16,
23, and 25, replacing them with plain-English tagging for hazards,
special economic zones, and military bases respectively.  In those
votes, there was very strong support for abandoning this invented
numbering system.