On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 16:31, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Site of Special Scientific Interest. > Does that actually specify what sort of protection the site enjoys? > Yes and no. It's complicated. :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest is an overview. As applied to England (Scotland, Wales, etc. are somewhat different) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-areas-sites-of-special-scientific-interest It's possible you could shoehorn SSSIs into an existing class or classes. > Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. > protection_class(or protection_category per the earlier > discussion)=landscape? > Possibly. Probably. Maybe. :) > World Heritage > > Site and World Heritage Site Arcs of View. Registered Historic > Landscape. Protected > > Wreck. There are also scheduled monuments, but they're generally > man-made and > > dealt with by heritage=*. > > Most of these would fall under 'cultural', I think - they're not > protecting a natural condition of the site but rather its cultural > significance. > The cultural significance can be one reason it is categorized as such, but the other is its natural beauty/aesthetic importance. Either way, it's legally protected (otherwise anyone could come along and trash it, ruining its status). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_Site Since the values are keywords, they should be endlessly expandable. > Constraining ourselves to the IUCN numeric codes is one of the things > that got us into this particular mess in the first place. I intend the > set of keywords to be open-ended, but urge discipline so that data > consumers don't need to deal with hundreds of variants for the details > of each jurisdiction's law. This categorization should give the 'broad > strokes'. > I just thought I'd let you know how broad some of those strokes will have to be. :) -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
