Kevin, The proposal looks pretty good.
When you've finished editing, please make a clear list off all the new, proposed tags, in one place. Also please clarify what pages are being edited and if protect_class=* is being deprecated by this proposal. It might make sense to deprecate all values of protect_class other than 1 to 6, since those numbers at least correspond to the IUCN numbers and most are fairly commonly used, while the higher numbers are rare and confusing. Over time, if protection_class becomes much more popular, the protect_class:1 to 6 might also become obsolete, but for the short term it might be difficult to change them all right away. One thing is that you write in one place that protection_class=condition should maybe just be protection_class=hazard, to replace the current protect_class=15 and 16, "Location Condition" and "Longtime Hazard Area". I think this makes sense. Re: protect_class=24, "Political protection", you might need to talk to the folks in Brazil who are using this tag. Not all of them were happy with using boundary=aborignal_lands instead, if I recall correctly, but perhaps this could change. Thanks for working on this. I think it's worth doing, since most of the protect_class values have never really become used, and their meaning is not very clear. On 8/18/19, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > .As has already been discussed at some length in the thread on tagging > of State Parks in the US, I've been working on a proposal for a > 'protection_class=*' key to replace 'protect_class=*'. It replaces the > seven numeric codes from IUCN (plus a zoo of codes that OSM appears to > have cut out of whole cloth) with 'protection_object=*', whose values > are drawn from a group of word-oriented codes that, it is hoped, will > be more mnemonic. (The proposal to describe State Parks as protected > areas was reasonably well received except for the issue that it > depended on the numeric 'protect_class=*' to describe the protection.) > > The proposal has now reached a state where I think it can be opened > for a formal RFC, and can be found at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas > . > > Of course, I'll monitor both this list and the talk page for the Wiki > page for comments, and try to address whatever comes up. > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
