On 29/08/19 09:21, François Lacombe wrote:
Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:01, Graeme Fitzpatrick
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
I've just had a quick play on TagInfo & protect_class &
protection_title, plus a couple of others, all refer to protected
areas of one type or another
Current usage on OSM is clear and I don't question this
This proposal is an opportunity to be sure we're choosing the most
appropriate word regarding what the target is.
How about reserving IP_class or IP_protection? Would seem to
cover it nicely (especially if they're not actually used!)
According to what Paul said, ingress_protection would be better.
ip_protection is redundant (p of protection + "protection")
Then we shouldn't have simple protection=* for this proposal but
xxxx_protection too.
As N of IUCN means Nature, what about nature_protection?
+1 for nature_protection. Says what it is?
Le jeu. 29 août 2019 à 01:05, Kevin Kenny <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
If people insist, I'd go to 'protected_area:category', but I consider
that to be rather too verbose, and I'm not sure that it's worth it to
avoid the minimal risk of namespace pollution.
Effort is appreciable, but there is no need to introduce namespace here
Currently I'd be in favour of removing at least _class or _type
suffixes as it doesn't bring additional information.
Class and type add nothing, don't use them.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
