Hi Tago. It's a good idea to keep any work in progress on your personal (user) wiki space, or on a proposal page with the relevant proposal template. This achieves two things. Firstly it reduces confusion by emphasising the fact that the tags are proposals only (therefore giving you the time to perfect the draft) and second it flags them to others who may be able to help with advice. --RobJN 15:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- A couple of points on the "protected_" pages. Looking at the Tag:boundary=protected area page it appears that all the class numbers are from IUCN. A bit of search on google suggests that only classes 1 to 6 are IUCN class numbers. In my opinion we should make a better distinction between the two situations - I guess this is what you are trying to do? One possible problem of trying to categorise things too finely (resource, culture, nature) is that often things are so straight forward and it is therefore difficult to determine which tag to use. Here in the United Kingdom, we are using Key:designation to add the official legal protection of a plot of land or a route (e.g. designation=Millennium Green, designation=public_footpath). Maybe you could propose an addition to the tag:
- --RobJN 15:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the names on Tag:boundary=protected area are (with the exception of IUCN classes) unofficial. Be aware that "community-live" should probably be "community-life"; "cultural values" may be better described as "cultural assets"; and "historic" has the problem of covering almost everything! --RobJN 15:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll soon be back with a revised proposal (including the proposal template).
- The boundary=protected_area page says in section "Background": 1 to 6 fit with the IUCN-level I to VI, class 19 to IUCN -999.
- Key:designation seems to be similar to Key:protection_title of the boundary=protected_area page.
- --Tago 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the update on my talk page. It looks good so far, and I completely agree that names are better than class numbers. I've never been much of a fan of boundary=protected_area as its very confusing to work out what value/tag you need if any. For 'Millennium Greens' here in the UK, I ended up ignoring the boundary=protected_area tag. Under your proposal "habitat_locally_protected" would fit well. Have you thought about what to do if 2 or more values apply? Keep up the good work - this is certainly needed!--RobJN 23:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have thought about what to do if 2 or more values apply (separate them by semicolon), I just haven't yet added it to the page. For more talks on this issue I suggest to use the talk page of the proposal. --Tago 09:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)