Am 11.03.2011 17:15, schrieb cr...@online.de:
hi,
cause is this contribution:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Misleading_tag_names
("protect_id is misleading ... The ID is a tool to find an unique area ...").
+1
What do you think: would it be meaningful to
rename the key protect_id to protect_class (or -type)?
perhaps.
On a first abstractation: Affected are about 2 773 keys worldwide with 577
different values (http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=11503).
Therefrom some are 4- and 5-digit and some are itemizations.
- they should be leave
1394 times protection_id and
- wrong use or some owe values, thats to check
2385 times protection_title.
- that should be a name string, no ID or class, so to leave
And there is 34095 times protected.
- doesn´t belong from my point of view in this case.
I would change
all "protect_id" with the values 1 to 99 into "protect_class"
"protection_id" with the values 1 to 99 (after a check) into "protect_class"
- may be in about ten days?
what should that protect_class be? is there any international standard
classification for these class numbers?
if not, that would not make anything better than it is now.
If I understand you right, you want to add protect_class instead of
protect_id.
While I agree that protect_id is far from perfect, I would suggest you to
ADD the new tags
ADD a note explaining why protect_id is not good and why that should be
overtaken by usage of protect_class
but STAY with the existant protect_ids for now.
That at least helps every application using these tags to change in the
future.
Additionally you don't destroy the work of other people without their
permission (a little bit more polite).
If you push them to a wiki page where you propose that change, they can
decide locally to drop the old tagging variant - or not.
regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
