Talk:Tag:boundary=protected area

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

A propose from "Landwirt" is, to add a "description"-tag (or protection_name, status_name, *protection_status*?). Therewith its better to distinguish between different sites of one level (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Landwirt/natural_resource_conservation).

Object of protection

Instead of adding another "protection_*" tag, I would suggest to simply use "object".

object=nature

object=water

object=potable_water

object=spa

--Landwirt 11:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
yes, may be ... I shrink there from a little
I chose this (one word more), cause on my experience, with a distinct expression, special in such a big context, its more probable to limit the options / - offer clear options for better handling.
So database-pelople have another opportunity to built a "set of objects" for protection. Shure, on the other hand they can just query objects fitting to protection ... (I imagine a big cloud of possible objects. See tagwatch, the single: type * (160757) (first 300 found entries) ...).
It would be a experiment with a single expression like object and I´ve no problem to become outvoted but too on the key "type" its commen to add another word.

> another "protection_*" tag ... there are not too much.

thank you, regards, T.

I cannot see......

First I will thank you for a good initiative, but unfortienately I cannot see how this level system can cover the various levels of protection used in Brazil (and probably many other countries) without the use of several additional tags. In Brazil there are three main levels of law protecting areas. Federal, state and municipal law. On top of that we have full scale protection (i.e. national parks), partly protection ( fauna protection, bird nesting protection etc.), ambiental protection areas, and climate protection areas. Each of these have different levels of protection. With this scheme we can have as much as 12 national/sub-national levels. I would rather continue to use the existing national_park and natural_reserve tags, but with additional tags describing level and type of protection. For example boundary=national_park name=Parque Estadual Paulo C Vinha protection=complete level=state and maybe even a reference to the law. An area on the border of this we have leisure=nature_reserve name=Area Ambiental do Setiba protection=ambiental level=municipal. For people interested in searching for keywords of the protection, how do I tag that this is Mata Atlantica or Rain Forest? --Skippern 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

hi Skippern,
thanks a lot about your infos from brazil!
I just read it - after my last table-update, so ... but I saw brazil (a little) :-) sorry, I know it seems to be a little cocky trying to establish a "protected-area-visualition-system" for the legend.
Its no equalize, its an examination. I think about visualition. Therefor you have to simplify. Still we have - I think - just these two levels, national park and nature reserve. I search for an opportunity to bring a littel more into the legend. I don´t want to equalize or planish even one of these well constructed protection systems - quite the contrary.
So I have to find, show and use the similarity of worlds levels of protection. In lots of countrys there might be actually about 10+x levels too ...

> ... Mata Atlantica or Rain Forest? these are biotop-items. I think, you have to lay down them anyway in tags, cause OSM has (still - thats an other "chapter") no such a legend. Otherwise it could be found by cutting boundarys out of "area-tags".
regards, --Typoshrub 15:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • If I have understood you correctly, the system works mainly with the "protection_level". I think that the tag "protection_status" should be a required field. This allows you to specify what type of protection, the area is. For example, in Brazil and Germany Naturschutzgebiet, Rain Forest, Mata Atlantica, Landschaftsschutzgebiet etc. I think your concept is good and I will support it. Thank you for your detailed description. Smarties 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

    • hi,
      > "protection_status" should be a required field
      yes. I renamed it to protection_type (´cause it seems to me more commen ...).--Typoshrub 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


  • Mata Atlantica is just one example of rain forest, and in Brazil, there are several national parks and nature reserves dedicated to protect Mata Atlantica, Amazonas, Pantanal or other special features. It could be interesting to generate maps about various types of protection, and maybe also have different symbols in rendering of various forms of parks. I know that this is maybe somewhat outside this proposal, but I am still airing these thoughts. My point is that a singleminded focus on protection_level is wrong, the tagging of a national park or nature reserve should reflect all aspects of the area, from what level of protection, what level of law/regulation governing this protection, and what is protected. Many nature reserves have different level of access depending on seasons, like islands where you are not allowed to go during nesting season of a particular bird, but is freely accessed the rest of the year. --Skippern 19:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • hi,
      > ... Mata Atlantica is just one example of rain forest
      ah! thanks ... :\
      > ... It could be interesting to ...
      Here we are talking about the administrativ act, not about landuse. On protection there is a difference in aims on one site and a fitting organisation and managment on the other. That should emerge out of the IUCN-leveling and thats, on my view, "types of protection"(?). You don´t want to visualise the care-actions. But - that should be possible too ...
      If you wish to see various forms of parks - that is a question about landuse and biotop. That is another chapter. And just for this point the present concept failure, because in some cases, you can´t see the landuse/biotop - just "NR".
      see the concept-chapter ... cheers, --Typoshrub 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This tagging scheme does fit perfectly with the Brazilian nature reserve system (see the Portuguese wikipedia article for details. The ICMBio Import page describes the tagging scheme used in a recent import. --Augusto S (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

a remake of the Tag

Hi, I think, this concept looks a little better. so far, --Typoshrub 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of creation

In France it will be possible to import data from the INPN. In this data we have a "date of creation" tag. I thought to several ways to note it:

  • valid_from=YYYY-MM-DD
  • creation_date=YYYY-MM-DD

Which one (or an other) would be better? Damouns 05:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


hi Damouns,

"date of creation" shouldn´t mean the dataset but the foundation of a protected site. Its an interesting info.

I think, the last one - or a

site_creation=YYYY-MM-DD, cause with "site" its more special.

Your finally used new tag should be too insert into "Usefull additional keys" on the Tag:boundary=protected area site. (sorry for the late reaction, but I didn't get any notification ...)

cheers, --Typoshrub 16:40, 18 October 2010 (BST)

After a long reflexion here about the import of this data, we used valid_from. It is always possible to change this tag if a better one is decided (by who?). In fact "valid_from" is consistent with INSPIRE data specifications (in which the "attribute validFrom is the date and time an object was/will be created in the real world"). Damouns 16:06, 19 October 2010 (BST)



hi Damouns, very interesting, your reflexions! thank you.


yes, I think "valid_from" fits and it includes private initiatives better than legal. I always shrink back, if a key ist too common (lots is valid_from) (- and too special) ... but, with a view to additional- and parent tags, there might be no direct association with "protection" needed (like site_valid_from, ...). We should suggest for valid_from on the Tag:boundary=protected_area-site on additional tags. May be too for values like "1910-1930; 1960-12-09", if a protection is no continuum?


On WDPA's protectedplanet.net they seems to use
status_year=2003



and "designation_type"=National on wdpa means
on the protected_area-wiki-site "site_ownership"
and on WikiProject France/Parcs-site "level"


a further addition tag could be the
wdpa_id=12345678



doesn´t mean the ID_SPN on WikiProject France/Parcs-site
protection_code=
+protection_code_source= ?
you have the sources for the id_spn?


thank you, --Typoshrub 14:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the meaning and the goal of protection_code and protection_code_source. If you wonder what is id_spn, it is an identifier (ID). I don't know the exact meaning of "SPN", but as the given values begin with "FR", I assume it an international ID. If protection_code is designed to indicate an ID, I think it should have been "ref-something". The fact that id_spn isn't a "ref-something" come from the fact that we chose to keep it as provided. Damouns 16:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


meaning and the goal of protection_code and protection_code_source:
The protection_code_source means the publisher - as abbreviation - of the identifier (ID),
where the ID/indicator/code comes from.
that is may be, what you have done with id_spn? Than:

  1. id_spn=FR0000000 would be the same than
  2. protection_code_source=id_spn + protection_code=FR0000000

This tag should give any official order-system of an area a space.

But with your, the first choice, you keep the source and the code together and - you preserve the possibility, to apply further order-systems.

On the other hand, nobody really knows, what kind of key f.e. "id_spn" is.

Eu-Use of "protection_code"= NSG WE 237 (1), NSG WE 245 (1), DE:2909-401 (1), NSG LÜ 259 (1), EUAP0504 (1)
Eu-Use of "protection_code_source"= nlwkn (1)
4 german, 1 italian (EUAP0504) until now.

You see, the protection_code_source doesn't real match for the user. They (mostly) don´t know, what they have to diarize.
protection_code_source=nlwkn is an Abb. for a german government agency (Nds. Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten- und Naturschutz).
For the italian site might be the protection_code_source=MATTM (Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare)?
Best regards, --Typoshrub 16:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Several ID from different sources are often attributed to a single protected area. For example, the Pitons, cirques and remparts of Reunion Island are in the World Heritage list of UNESCO and therefore have an ID from the World Heritage Comite (WHC) of UNESCO (1317). But the same area is also the heart of a French National Park and have an ID for the natural protected sites of France (INPN) (FR3300009). In this case we could simply have whc:ref=1317 (as proposed in Proposed_features/heritage) and inpn:ref=FR3300009 (in order to get rid of id_spn). This would be consistent with the other "ref" systems. For me, "protection_code" is not consistent, neither id_spn. Damouns 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)




Hi Damouns,

inpn:ref=FR3300009
thats nice.

somthing like for
amenity=library
+ ref:isil=DE-1111
--

common/tagwatch-Eu-Clip:
...
ref:IBNR2 * (33)
ref:INSEE * (48085)
ref:ISIL * (12)
ref:KBS * (17)
...
to be sure, that the "ref-inpn"-combination will never be used with any other key, you can take instead "ref" "protection_code":
protection_code:inpn=FR3300009
its a long string, but unique ....


so vote for:
protection_code:inpn=FR3300009
or
inpn:ref=FR3300009
?
best regards, --Typoshrub 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I definitively prefer inpn:ref because it is consistent. But I am afraid that few people are following this debate here. Damouns 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

new tagging Info

a propose for a tagging Info upgrade:

For the simple minimal identification, three tags are enough (on a pinch two, if you don´t know the name e.g.).

so it goes like this (for a simple area):

  1. draw an enclosed line
  2. designate it with:
boundary=protected_area
+ protect_class=1 to 99 |or| protect_id=1 to 99
+ protection_title=...

( protect_class illustrates protected_area! Don´t miss it out)



Use relations for complex areas. These are:
- areas or boundaries, for those a continuous line is not sufficient, but several are necessary
- areas or boundaries, seated with a interspace, in a distance
- areas, including "iles" res. an exclusion zone.
- areas or boundaries, witch are part of others (network)

so it goes like this (for a complex area):

  1. draw the boundary with some lines
  2. select one
  3. take a relation (new or existing) and assign the other lines to it

- im OSM-Editor JOSM (http://josm.openstreetmap.de/): down right, the button with a little plus and a gear
- im OSM-online-Editor Potlach: down right, button with the little layer-sign (above the plus-button)

With a relation, you just need to declare the tags into the relation, not anymore to the ways
- except for those ways, who are special, e.g. a boundary-line with barriere=fence.


types of relations

  • type=boundary for lines/ways; don´t have to be a closed ring.
  • type=network an "appendant-declaration"
  • type=multipolygon for all area-declarations, lines/ways have to be closed. In my opinion the default for areas ...



Help and hints for multipolygon-construction
- Relation:multipolygon http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
- Relation:multipolygon/Examples 1 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon/Examples
- Relation:multipolygon/Examples 2 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Multipolygon_Examples "2.1 Wiese mit Farmland ..."
(in german & netherland region, "multipolygon" ist common – but it seems to don´t work with e.g. the KOSMOS-renderer - compared to "boundary"...)
- Relation:boundary

Needing more than one protect class?
Duplicate the area and put them on top of each other. E.g. for class 97, 98 or 99, which often incorporate different smaler protected_areas, sometimes too with interstitials. The use of double-values with semicolon like 2;97 seems to be deprecate in OSM, because most software doesn´t come along with it.

designing zones (propose): see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Multipolygon_Examples#Wiese_mit_Farmland_mit_zwei_W.C3.A4ldern_mit_Buschwerk_.28Polygone_.C3.BCber_4_Ebenen_verschachtelt.29.
Create zones like joining areas, with type=multipolygon-relations and tags site_zone=1, ... Than keep the areas together with another, upper relation.


using external IDs: syntax/technic with ref=*

Because "ref" its common in OSM for external IDs, its recommend, to use it for areas ("habitat", "hecl", whc, ...).

  • ref:ABBR=
  • ref:source:ABBR=
  • ref:category:ABBR=
  • ...
  • ref:ABBR:=
  • ref:ABBR:source=
  • ref:ABBR:category=
  • ...
  • ABBR:ref=
  • ABBR:ref:source=
  • ABBR:ref:category=
  • ...

On the tagwatch different schemes are used. It seems to be a "matter of taste", but I got better lists with the second ref:ABBR:source.
The used abbreviation (ABBR.) should be in any case an official one - or been pointed on :sources=
For key-seperation the colon : . The underline for keeping two strings together without space (its different from the actual ref-wiki).

some examples

Naturpark Mecklenburgisches Elbetal: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44816271 A naturereserve as part of the network "Naturparks Deutschlands".
Way attached to a type=network - relation. Main-tag-decorations are on the way.

Naturschutzgebiet Wienbeek and Natura 2000: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/325998
An [old naturereserve], [upgraded 2006] with "ile"/"exception" and in addition being ["FFH"-part] of a ["Natura 2000"-network]. Way attached to a type=multipolygon - relation and these relation attached to a type=network - relation. Main-tag-decorations are on the relations.

Misleading tag names

For me the tag name "protect_id" is misleading because for me, an ID is an identifier (see wikipedia:identifier). It should be unique and can be used to identify an unique object (like a name). Here the meaning of "protect_id" is (if I got it right) to indicate the IUCN Category. It is a classification tag. Why not rename it protect_class, protect_category, or maybe protect_level? Damouns 09:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

hi Damouns,
may be - its itself no "unique expression" but together with the boundary=protected_area - system it is not misleading.
no, its not to "indicate the IUCN Category" only:
Concept: for the sake of independence, don´t think the IDs coupled with the IUCN categories.
class, category, level, ... - a "non-hierarchical" key was needed ... A hierachic might only be interesting for zones inside an area.
You might use protect_id without boundary=protected_area unique ...
thanks for your comment! Best regards, --Typoshrub 11:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't get it. For example in the pages of www.protectedplanet.net each area has an ID: Etangs Vaillant, Du Crêt Et Du Fort got the ID 345899 (it is the WDPA ID, as indicated in the right panel). The ID is a tool to find an unique area, as in an url such as http://www.protectedplanet.net/sites/345899. Two distinct areas must have different IDs. The value you suggest to enter in protected_id isn't an ID. It is a class, a category, a type, a genre... as you want but not an ID. Damouns 12:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Damouns. Your right. I didn´t pay enough attention for that term. I check upgrade-technics for the given tags and report here next days ... best regards, --Typoshrub 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Damouns. their was been 3-4 answers on postings on forum.openstreetmap.org and lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging: the tenor was, don´t rename given keys - at the end with the (one) closure: offer an avoid key. Therefor I set on my short-list "protect_class", "protect_type" and "protect_set". I vote for "protect_type", because its short and because "set" is too technical, "class" implies any orders or hierachies.
So the mainpage will be updated ... --Typoshrub 14:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Its updated. Lastly I vote for "protect_class=*" (no other contributions) because some member-values implies more discrepancies, than "type" would suggest. And hierarchy fits too a littel: at least to keep the key open therefor. --Typoshrub 15:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

rendering

The document says "Protected_area becomes not rendered until now." Does anyone know what is the progress in this regard? The proposed workaround using multipolygons and relations is not acceptable. Where do we start for making the protected areas being rendered?

--Normis 10:38, 6 September 2011 (BST)

I've remove that text because it was suggesting to tag for the renderer and I think we should only talk about the proposal here. It's then up to each renderer to show or not to show those new way of tagging protected area.

( As far as I know, only Hiking/openhikingmap renders boundary=protected_area ) sletuffe 14:59, 6 September 2011 (BST)

International consistency

I do not think is is sensible to have a different conceptual basis for different protect_class in different countries. Although the ways of legislation may differ that can be added as an information note. It is useful to have tags that convey the same information around the world.

For example, the table for Australia conflicts with the IUCN tables shown above it. It in not sensible to instruct mappers in Australia to use class 3 for Conservation Parks (which can conserve all kinds of different values). IUCN class 3 is designated for "natural monuments or features" including places that are of "cultural and archaeological" importance. Ayers rock might be a good example of a genuinely monumental protected area. IUCN class 4 is for "Habitat/Species Management Areas", which would include probably the great majority of Australian Conservation Parks. I see many examples in osm where people tagging seem to have been confused by the table for Australia, using protect_class=3 for areas that are unquestionably habitat management areas rather than monumental features.

Perhaps the protect_class=3 and 4 descriptions in the table for Australia could be corrected?


Thank you!
Ayers Rock is "IUCN Category Unknown", it should be protect_class 19. Or maybe alternativ protect_class 21.
I made a notice in the table to this discussion and researched about the australien nc-system in Protected areas value in Australia: Designations and upate the table with the main used allocations. There are 348 Conservation Parks, but always a few exceptions, e.g. a few so called Conservation Parks (39) are class 2.
If somebody is involved into the australian system, he should please update the table or post proposals here!
best regards, --Typoshrub 16:04, 5 October 2011 (BST). --Typoshrub 21:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


Better late than never...
It's not going to be possible to provide a tagging guide for Australia protect_class 1 to 6 based on the names given to the protected areas as there is no consistency. For example in New South Wales something called a "National Park" can be in IUCN category Ia, Ib, II, IV, or V. Something called "Nature Reserve" can be Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, or V. "State Conservation Area" can be Ia, II, IV, or V. This is just for one state, every other state will have their own system. The best we can do is to direct mappers to the CAPAD database where they can look up their particular area.
--Adavidson (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)



hi Adavidson,
Thank you. I just find your name & post here, after sending a posting to your User talk
"a tagging guide ... based on the names" its sometimes hardly possible because of semantics and in debt of this global pattern.
Than look more for the content of protection. Its not beautiful, but I would insert "National Park" in all matching columns. "
... "State Conservation Area" can be Ia, II, IV, or V." you have examples on protectplanet (WDPA)? Than its like that.
Primarily give for p_a the protect_class number. This number makes the sense in this OSM-scheme, neither the prot_area- nor the name-tag.

I hope that will help a bit?
best, --Typoshrub (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)



defining distinctions
The reason for tags like „leisure=nature_reserve“ are the worldwide diverse views or values about what nature-conservation is - or should be.
Some people see this term (value) more near leisure (key). But it isn´t (on my view): if you see the other leisure-terms (beach_resort, bird_hide, common, ...): they are for using the area or for running into the area – it´s a categorie (key) of consum and use by man. That is a complete different object as for what naturecare is, namely to prevend areas, to protected them from the use and „development“ by men.
Maybe some have a leisure-feeling, while tagging protected areas. Its natural, that taggers from countries with big wild areas (e.g. sweden) see this term more in a leisure light. But even there, they are not for leisure – I think, if they ask the legislative authority, they will declare that.
Grades of use are compromises and exceptions – and they make the protected_classes (at least the first seven).
And e.g. the australien term "nature reserve" is located in class 1, in germany in class 4.
„landuse=conservation“ implies a use too. The term is more compatible for people who can´t see wilderness, because theirwith, she is in use too. And conservation might imply a bit a freeze state? That doesn´t match, because you can´t catch nature, can´t fix her dynamics.
best, --Typoshrub 21:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick ticketing / new protect_class

Relationship of public/Government and protection

some months ago a new class becomes introduced, protect_class 27, named "public land". I´m not from the United States and not very familiar with their system, but I think, it doesn´t match good: Beeing public property (Government) or beeing property of the "BLM" are no causes for protection, but an information about the owner, so select:

   operator=BLM
   site_ownership=public
   governance_type=government_managed
   ref:BLM="ID12345"
    + ref:BLM:source="List of BLM (2012)" 

Protect_class are based on different topics and grades, which you can find in this case among the given protect_class.


Some BLM areas seems to be with IUCN-Category and are assignable, but they are scattered in different IUCN-labels (here spec. 1 and 5). See protectedplanet: USA > More:Public Land (BLM) (2). The BLM holds probably too Natural Monuments, so these areas might be protect_class (3,) 22 or 99. For keeping "grazing land" (cattle raising) use class 15. Than, for mining, maybe class 19 (should safeguarded-areas for mining, e.g. oil, gold, coal, ..., become tagged as protected_area? There is a classification in germany to prevent constructions or buildings for a 15 years period.).



Quick ticketing and upload

Smaller areas without IUCN, but with a nature-, cultivation-, habitat-focus, might get protect_class 7.
But generaly, if there is no matching class, as for general identifier, get a protect_class 19.
For social-protected-area is a general protect_class 29.


On my view, if you want to make it quick, the best practice would be, to upload areas in a generally class, e.g. as

   boundary=protected_area
    + protect_class=19(7, 29) with 
    + operator=XY ...,   (or other additional, descriptive keys, like site_ownership=, ...)

so they can become described later with suitable details and the schema stays consistent.
(but it would be nice, to watch for giving a name & title by time ...)

best, --Typoshrub 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Class of a "Geschützter Landschaftsbestandteil" (protected environmental area)

sign

Does somebody know which class is the german "de:Geschützter Landschaftsbestandteil" (protected environmental area)? It's the same sign as nature protected area, but with the other text. --Michi 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


hi Michi,
characteristic for this "protected environmental area" are "occasional or very small scale areas for the protection of individual creations of nature or of elements of particular significance to the ecosystem and to stimulate and structure landscape" [bfn.de], so its usually nature-bonded(1) and I have in mind the class

  • 7

This class should bring together all the smaller, more local validations and namings - like habitats, (small, "single") natural monuments and above-named "protected landscape component". A partition of this/a class should happen by additional taggs.


btw:
(1)if the protection-issue would be more ressources-bonded, there might be possible too

  • 14 species
  • 15 location

...
best regards, --Typoshrub 06:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you statement, i did use class 7. --Michi 19:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving mining-affairs from the social-economic categorie

I change class 23 by moving the example term "mining planned" (to the ressources-protection-categorie), because it matches better there and class 23 seems to be not used yet. Maybe a mining-affair is something for the common class 19.
An area, protected because of mining-affairs, implies to prevent an area, for become covered by buildings or constructions.

best,--Typoshrub 09:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Key:designation and equivalent protect_class

What are equivalent protect classes of the following values of Key:designation?

--MK 11:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


hi,
http://www.protectedplanet.net/
  • klick: Download All
  • than: Europe > more > United Kingdom
  • look to: DESIGNATION > more
  • here you find e.g. "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" (49)
  • That title seems to be (mostly?) IUCN Category: V, so protect_class=5


collect your results and post them here – or add the data direct into the table of countries.
I don´t remember / havend seen an complete UK-list yet (as mentioned, there used to be any :publishing restrictions in/with UK). Maybe you find one here: www.iucn-uk.org
(usually you can´t be sure, that a title is placed only in one IUCN-category, probably because of :different managments. But mostly there is a clear emphasis. Once, I set secondarys into brackets, but
this mark is used for other too)
best, --Typoshrub 13:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

A thought on the rendering of sustainable use areas

In Brazil, there are so-called "áreas de proteção ambiental" (environmental protection areas), which are typically very large in area, and often include small towns or neighbourhoods, and often include other more strict nature reserves inside their perimeter. Their IUCN level is 5. One example can be found here. If such areas are to be rendered at all, such rendering should be very subtle in high zoom levels so as to not interfere with other map elements.

Hi,
yes, any transparent or icon signature or only the borders - and too: some data from the OSM-geodata-collecting are no basic map stuff, but they are for special requests. A good work, with three different IUCN 5-areas, partly with splitted, respectively extern areas. You can see the areas here too: <http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/23s> filled out e.g. with key=protect_class and value=5 (you have to klick the left button).
best, --Typoshrub (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Q&A

Why do the protect_class categories not match up with the list of categories on the IUCN website? -Valerietheblonde (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
The first six categories still match widely with the IUCN's. You see a dissonance? Ours became enhanced by non-IUCN local areas (7) and the real big, worldwide agreements (97, 98). Point for osm is, to get the (all) restiction-matters - for navigation & information.
Osm should not become forced to change his legend, if the IUCN make serious changes.
by *additional keys*, with a ref-tag, you can add a link to existing IUCN-data:
ref:IUCN:name=
ref:IUCN=
+ ref:IUCN:source=

best --Typoshrub (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WDPA

I removed some text that could have encouraged users to add data from the WDPA, which is not allowed for copyright or other legal reasons. Pnorman (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)