Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > I've just had a quick play on TagInfo & protect_class & protection_title, > plus a couple of others, all refer to protected areas of one type or another > Current usage on OSM is clear and I don't question this This proposal is an opportunity to be sure we're choosing the most appropriate word regarding what the target is. > How about reserving IP_class or IP_protection? Would seem to cover it > nicely (especially if they're not actually used!) > According to what Paul said, ingress_protection would be better. ip_protection is redundant (p of protection + "protection") Then we shouldn't have simple protection=* for this proposal but xxxx_protection too. As N of IUCN means Nature, what about nature_protection? Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:05, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > 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. Effort is appreciable, but there is no need to introduce namespace here Currently I'd be in favour of removing at least _class or _type suffixes as it doesn't bring additional information. All the best François
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
