On 7/4/20 5:27 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
There is also a third tag: leisure=nature_reserve, which is even more
common, and traditionally has been used for natural conservation areas
which are not National Parks or similar.
Used 110k times:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dnature_reserve
Just over half of those are dual tagged with either
boundary=national_park or boundary=protected_area
I don’t expect leisure=nature_reserve or boundary=national_park to
disappear, but we can add additional tags to clarify the category of
nature reserve or protected area
OK, I'm obviously not explaining the problem correctly, so I'll try again.
There currently exists the following tags:
boundary=protected_area
protect_class=2
Which is a conservation area with an IUCN management category of II.
The proposal is to replace protect_class=[0-99] with protection_class=*
and specifies a series of values to replace the numbers used in
protect_class.
Rather than specifying a value for protection_class that replaces
protect_class=2, the proposal is to replace it with
boundary=national_park. boundary=national_park is an *existing* tag that
is used to tag "a relatively large area of land" that is "set aside for
human recreation and enjoyment, as well as the protection of the natural
environment and/or cultural heritage of an area". This is not
exclusively areas with an IUCN management category of II and, as
inspection of the current tagging use shows, is not exclusively used for
areas with an IUCN management category of II.
So the problem is that the proposal is retrospectively redefining
boundary=national_park to be a conservation area with an IUCN management
category of II. Which, given the fact that it has already been used over
13,000 times, is no the wisest thing to do.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
