Re: > change the key to 'protection_category=' That would be fine.
Re: > 'protected_area:category' No thank you; no need to add :type or :category suffixes to keys. You could use 'protected_area=*' as the key. It has the disadvantage of already being used a couple of hundred times, but the current values are not terrible: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/protected_area But overall, I think protection_class=* is fine. On 8/29/19, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
