On 6/4/20 9:23 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
The only thing that the proposal page still needs is a couple more
detailed definitions for some of the tags.
Maybe not. A quick read finds this statement:
protect_class=2 will be tagged as boundary=national_park (de facto)
This is a problem because boundary=national_park already exists as a
generic tag for a conservation area. A quick survey of all of the
existing boundary=national_park with a wikidata link finds the following
range of IUCN Protected Area Categories:
Class Count
IA 95
IB 70
II 848
III 74
IV 277
V 234
VI 159
Total 1757
So less than 50% of "National Parks" are Cat II.
I would suggest adding protection_class=national_park and dropping the
suggestion of using boundary=national_park.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
