On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Yves <yve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Puting aside the pleasure to debate over landuse and landcover, what about > defining hunting = as a permission tag, and invent a new polygon type > dedicated to define a hunting area boundary where no other polygon is > suitable to add this tag to? >
I think that's a fine idea, and I think (rereading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area) that 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=14 protection_object=hunting' would be eminently appropriate if there's no other polygon type available. I see that 'protect_class=14' is documented to mean '*species:* no fishing, protected for fishery, *protected for hunting*, plants, ... ' (italics mine), which sounds just like what's intended. I used 'hunting=*' with the New York City conservation lands import, along with 'trapping=*' and 'fishing=*'. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6304831 is an example of the full set of tags. I didn't come up with a formal proposal, because then I'd have to think harder about what the default values ought to be; Sorry, I'm lazy! I mentioned the tags in the import proposal, and nobody complained. The issue of defaults is a tough one.For instance, all State Forests in New York allow hunting, with the exception that the ones in Regions 1-3 require specific authorization to hunt there. All allow fishing wherever there's a suitable waterbody. When I did the New York State lands, I didn't trouble with those tags. Perhaps I should have, since it's not immediately obvious what particular locale-dependent assumptions ought to be made. Food for thought.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
