Hi Peter,
...
...
... protect_class
protect_class doesn´t exist anywhere. It should be an OSM-own tag.
but I made a decision for "protect_type" because it implies less any
quality rating than "_class" and its shorter.
it should have its "valence" in combination with protected_area.
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.
than I will update the wiki-page ...
like:
----------------------------------------------
- instead protect_id the key protect_type
and start the follwoing external ID-keys with a "ref:"
ref:NLWKN=NSG LÜ 259
ref:EUR27=3170
ref:BAYER=UZT 56 HH
_Question_ ist, if names-syntax above is usefull, because its barely
significant, better:
ref:iucn_levle=4
ref:protection_code_NLWKN=NSG LÜ 259
ref:habitat_code_EUR27=3170
ref:hecl_code_BAYER=UZT 56 HH
----------------------------------------------
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).
oh ... I thought, most of mapper would not realise this "backend-action"
and would be a kind of happy ... but yes, your right.
...
thanks,
regards, crom
...
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
