Hi Martin,
That was an interesting analysis. I enjoyed reading it, and found I pretty much
agree with your points. A few embedded comments below:
On 29. Nov 2018, at 10:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
By the time, I thought it would be a good scheme because it
distinguished the hierarchy
On 29. Nov 2018, at 10:40, Daniel Koć wrote:
I was trying to use this in my first approach to protected areas, but I have
found that only protection_level numbers were standardized. Others are (mostly)
human readable mess, for example:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=protection_titl
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:55 AM Paul Allen wrote:
Everyone seems to have forgotten boundary=administrative with its associated
admin_level=n tag, which IMHO is pretty analogous to boundary=protected_area
with its protect_class=n tag.
I didn't forget it. I neglected to mention it because I didn
ecent years around this topic.
I'm sorry if my slightly hysterical posts were over the top. No offense
intended. Perhaps I should see someone about my paranoid tendencies:-) I also
realize that these kinds of mailing list discussions are a distraction from the
real work. Sorry!
Thanks very
On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> and I fail to see how much more
>> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and
"protect_class=24"
>
> Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike
boundary=aboriginal_lands
And on 11/26/18 17:00, Frederick Ramm wrote:
>We
This is a bad proposal. We should stick with the boundary=protected_area
tag family. As a whole, it's a successful attempt to bring some rational
organization to what will over time (or to some extent already has)
otherwise develop into a hodge-podge of top level boundary types:
boundary=nation
