Andrew, would you please repeat this analysis with all features tagged "protect_class=2" which have a wikidata tag?
I suspect that many of those will not match according to Wikidata. On 4/6/20, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
