On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 9:36 PM Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a > clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like > leisure=state_park
The non-intuitiveness may prove to be a hidden advantage. At least there's very little existing tagging (other than the fiction of calling state parks boundary=national_park) that the usage would break. It defuses a lot of, "but I can't retag all the existing ones in my state!" (which are tagged differently from every other state, but all the others are WRONG!) It's a compromise that absolutely nobody is going to be happy with. But in about five years of trying to work with these things, I don't think I've seen an idea for how to tag them that has had any prayer of getting a majority. It's also rather a different concept. Rather than, "this is a state park", it's "this is public-access land that a government has protected in perpetuity for recreational purposes" - which is a fact that can be established in the promulgation of the boundary and the law that established it. It also avoids the word, 'park', which in OSM is a term of art that does not encompass anything close to the entire spectrum of land uses that the word in common parlance conveys to virtually all US English speakers and many English speakers in the Commonwealth. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
