On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn’t know we were bound to IUCN classes. IMHO we can have our own system, > while it should ideally allow to distinguish all the IUCN classes, it doesn’t > mean we cannot have more qualifiers, if they seem useful.
We return to the original idea proposed at the very start of this thread: 'protect_class=21 protection_object=recreation' for these features. Except for the ugliness of using numeric values for protect_class, it sounds as if you might agree with the original idea? > For the Italian situation, a distinction for many protected areas by > national, regional (al 4), provincial (al 6) and municipal (al 8) seems to > make a lot of sense. If it doesn’t apply (e.g. not a protected area by the > competent government), don’t put admin_level. Sure. I have no problem with admin_level. If you want to tag, admin_level=4 on state parks, be my guest! It's just a little distracting, because it doesn't actually address the issue (a area protected for diverse recreational uses, partaking of park, recreation_ground, nature_reserve, and a few other things) but with a single enclosing boundary, and a single name. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
