Hi all, This proposal sounds good in the field of knowledge it covers and I would certainly go for it when vote will be open.
I've noticed a potential conflict with protection degrees defined in IEC 60529 norm (IP-XY numbers seen on many electronic appliances), also called "protection class". Could you please consider this contribution to RFC please? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal:_Named_protection_class_for_protected_areas#Potential_conflict_with_IEC_60529_degrees_of_protection All the best François Le dim. 18 août 2019 à 15:43, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
