[Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 137, Issue 129

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

Wrong subject line ? I think this belongs in "[Tagging] Feature Proposal
- RFC - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations (Was "Feature Proposal
- RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) relations")".

If you resubmit can you include links to "the others" ? I think it's a
good point and deserves at least discussion.

On 16/02/2021 02:45, Michael Patrick wrote:
>
>     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.  ....   
>     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.
>
>  
> The 'invented' tags were an inevitable consequence of selecting a
> classification system IUCN, which by its own description was very
> narrow in scope.
> If 'inventing' a classification system isn't desirable, and adopting
> an external classification system like IUCN was acceptable, why not
> repurpose one that was actually designed from the ground up by an
> international community of stakeholders, including lawyers,
> scientists, planners, economists that's now been tested over a couple
> of decades, which addresses every semantic case of Land cover and Land
> Use that's been mentioned.
> Or at a minimum, compare a proposed system to existing ones, on the
> off chance all those people may have thought through some difficulties
> and resolved them. One is the EU INSPIRE ( example
> https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/theme/am and
> https://eurogeographics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2.-INSPIRE-Specification_Lena_0.pdf
> ), there are others. If you skim through these other models, it is
> fairly easy to understand why they divided the concepts the way they
> did, and how they build in extensions and room for more detail.
>  
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210216/59c74951/attachment-0001.htm>