[Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

2019-07-27 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Please take a minute to review the new page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status I've made this page, based on the existing list of definitions for the values of the "status" field in the ValueDescription and KeyDescription boxes - that's the word "approved", "rejected", "de facto",

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

2019-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2019, at 16:19, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status thank you for taking on this, good work. Allow me one remark for deprecated and obsolete. Currently it reads: “ de

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

2019-07-27 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective. I think it may be difficult to get protect_class=21 rendered, unless the ta

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

2019-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. I

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

2019-07-27 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 8:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. In > particular, please make a well-reasoned argument for why we need to supposed > boundaries tagged on closed ways at #3785 - try to be concise and objective. I'll work

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

2019-07-27 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:36 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a > clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like > leisure=state_park The non-intuitiveness may prove to be a hidden advantage. At leas

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

2019-07-27 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
I didn’t realize that all of the protect_class>6 values were invented for osm. In that case, I see no reason to use any values for protect_class above 7. None of the higher values is used very frequently, and it’s impossible for me to remember which each one means, especially the values from 21 to