On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 6:21 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > To be honest, I'd not expect a national park to be protected from liquid or > particulate ingress, > nor an electrical enclosure to impose restrictions on building houses within > it. Nor do I expect > even micro-mappers to document the IP rating of electrical enclosures they > map. The only > thing we really need to worry about is namespace collision, and that's > usually dealt with by > a first-come/first-served approach. > >> Let's see if Kevin wishes to take care of this > > If he can, that would be good. If he can't, then anyone who needs to map the > International > Protection rating of electrical enclosures will have to come up with a > different tag. :)
As Paul observes, the collision seems pretty far-fetched. I'm sure that there are all sorts of non-geographic things that are protected from something or other and may admit of classes of protection. I can't imagine any of those being associated with a boundary=protected_area (or national_park, or aboriginal_lands), and I don't intend 'protection_class' to stand alone. I _am_ tempted to change the name to 'protection_category' because that's IUCN's term, and then discuss on the Wiki that 'recreation', 'culture', and 'hazard' expand upon the IUCN vocabulary to encompass types of protection that the International Union for the Conservation of *Nature* does not recognize (these protections, in general, apply to sites that are substantially altered from a natural state and for which returning them to a natural state may not be an objective). If people insist, I'd go to 'protected_area:category', but I consider that to be rather too verbose, and I'm not sure that it's worth it to avoid the minimal risk of namespace pollution. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
