On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:52, Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > I don't know if I would or not because I didn't examine it in any detail after seeing the numeric values. The numeric values convinced me it was a non-starter, so I didn't investigate further. I have no objection to using it as optional, supplemental information about an object tagged in some other way. Much the same as opening_hours or the UK Food Hygiene Rating Scheme ID with fhrd:id=n. I can add those, but I don't have to. With that sort of usage I could even live with numeric values for protect_class (I doubt I'd ever add one because it's too much like hard work figuring out what number to use, but if I encountered one I'd not remove it). I have a problem with the numeric values if you intend this to be a top-level tag for an object, replacing other ways of tagging such an object. In that situation, numeric values are (for me) a no-go. I suspect whatever you come up with may have to be usable as both top-level and supplemental, to cater for all sorts of existing objects which already have existing schemes but which also fall under an IUCN class. In the UK, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Registered Historic Landscapes come to mind. There are others. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
