Proposed features/Special economic zone
|Special Economic Zones|
|Proposed by:||Brian Sperlongano (ZeLonewolf on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.)|
|Definition:||An area in which the business and trade laws are different.|
A special economic zone (SEZ) is a government-defined area in which business and trade laws are different. SEZs are located within a country's national borders, and their aims include increased trade balance, employment, increased investment, job creation and effective administration. (See:)
This proposes that:
- The cryptic numeric tag protect_class=23 does not follow the OSM convention of using English-language words to describe objects, and instead relies on a lookup table. A numbered value in this situation is confusing and unnecessary. In addition, protect_class=23 has only trivial usage. The protect_class=* tag as a whole is confusing and unwieldy due to this use of numeric values rather than the OSM convention of English words. Deprecating protect_class=23 improves tagging for SEZs and is an initial step towards the eventual deprecation of that key and replacing it with tagging that uses named values.
- The combination boundary=protected_area + protect_class=23 has no known use among data consumers or renderers, therefore this change has no or minimal impact on users of OSM data.
- The tag boundary=special_economic_zone was first used in 2018. There are currently a small number of usages worldwide. Rather than create a new tag, it is proposed to formalize this existing usage.
- In common usage, the term "protected area" is understood to describe preserved open space, certain types of parks, and conservation areas. The removal of SEZs from boundary=protected_area reduces the scope of that key to better reflect the plain-English meaning of that tag.
- There are a sufficient number of SEZs worldwide to justify a dedicated tag. Estimates put the total number between 2,700 and 10,000. While only a small number of SEZs are currently mapped, providing an established tag allows for future mappers to make use of a standard, approved convention for mapping these zones.
- SEZs are verifiable because they are defined by law. Therefore, each SEZ has a legal definition as to its exact boundaries. SEZ boundaries are sometimes visible, in the form of fences, barriers, and/or signs. Other times, SEZ boundaries are invisible lines on the ground, or some combination of both. In this regard, SEZs meet the exact same standard of verifiability that is met by the 1.7 million administrative boundaries tagged boundary=administrative.
- There are examples of SEZs that are coterminous with administrative boundaries as well as SEZs that are independent of them. Thus, it is not sufficient for SEZs to be an attribute applied to an area tagged boundary=administrative; a distinct boundary=* tag is required.
The Wikipedia pagecontains a compilation of SEZs in over 30 countries. Some examples include:
- The island province of , China
- North West Suez Special Economic Zone (SSEZ), Egypt
- , India
- , Indonesia
- , Iran
- , Latvia
- The , an SEZ and high-technology business district in central-southern Selangor, Malaysia
- , Myanmar
- , Panama
- , Poland
The current combined usage of boundary=special_economic_zone and protect_class=23 is likely too small at this time for renderers to consider rendering these areas. In some cases a SEZ covers an entire city or region, and as such, rendering may not be appropriate. However, should this object count increase in the future with additional tagging to further refine SEZs, it may be appropriate to render some or all SEZs with an outline boundary.
|boundary=special_economic_zone||Create this page|
|Template:protect_class||Update this template to deprecate protect_class=23|
|Key:boundary||Update this page to add boundary=special_economic_zone as a permissible value.|
- RFC tagging mailing list thread
- Abandoned 2017 proposal to create boundary=economic.
- Proposal for named protection classes.
- Proposed tagging of SEZs in India (not adopted) at Talk:India/Boundaries/Proposal
- Calfarone diary entry on SEZ mapping
- osm-seed effort, which seeks to map SEZs
- Development Seed github ticket for SEZ mapping
Please comment on the discussion page.
Place your vote below. -->
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Sounds good. Thanks for the work you all did to bring this clarification to the proposal stage. --AlaskaDave (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I support a Special Economic Zone boundary separate from protected areas. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I support this proposal. I find a useful and easier-to-understand direction for OSM is to move away from numeric-coded values (as in protect_class=*) and move towards natural-language tagging. This is an excellent step in that direction. We've already started to do this, for example, with boundary=aboriginal_lands. Stevea (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I also support this proposal, for reasons that essentially match Stevea's above. I find coded values such as protect_class=* a bit of a mess compared to the proposed natural-language tagging alternative, especially since as I understand it, the choice of "23" for this zone originally was a bit of an ad-hoc hack in the first place. Much better to have something readable that doesn't require a lookup table to translate if you don't use it frequently, and this is one easy step closer to resolving the rest of the protect_class=* mess. Chuck (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.As per the others comments above - simple English is the way to go! --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Emiriku (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Using boundary=protected_area was always weird for this - it seems to be confusing a protected area like a nature reserve with a political protectorate. I'm also eager to get rid of the numeric-coded values in protect_class=*, but this type of object never belonged in that namespace in the first place! --Kevin Kenny (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --clay_c (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal., though "are mapped with the single tag boundary=special_economic_zone" is not a good phrasing. Other tags may also apply. I am also not entirely happy about mapping border not surveyable on the ground, but minor administrative borders were mapped before I appeared in OSM... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify, I did not intend to imply that additional tags could not be applied. Of course additional tagging can be added, as with any feature. By "single tag", I was describing that the "single tag" (boundary=special_economic_zone) replaces the two tag combination of boundary=protected_area+protect_class=23. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Didn't know we had no way of mapping these. Thanks for proposing the tag! --Zverik (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I know of one SEZ but had no clue how to tag. Thanks for the creating this proposal Glassman (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Yay. Another law-defined boundary! --Lectrician1 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The boundary=protected_area scheme with protect_class=23 is completely functional. It will not be better if new boundaries are invented for everything, instead of improving the existing definitions. --streckenkundler (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Did you not see the tag-info comparison? Documentation is just going to be better and more understandable, than just trying to put it under boundary=protected_area. Lectrician1 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. This tags says what it means and is intrinsically clear. --Andrew (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --AntMadeira (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Based on what was discussed in the Discussion page, I vote in favour of this proposal.
- I approve this proposal. We are not concerned a priori in France, but it is a good proposal.--Gendy54 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Good idea, these areas exist in many countries. Just a question : What about Delaware ? ;-) --unsigned vote by Nicolas Champseix
- I oppose this proposal. boundary=protected_area & protect_class=23 already exists for this --Andreas Binder (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Natfoot footnat (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --ForgottenHero (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fanfouer (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Rouelibre (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --TimurRin (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. To use 'protected' is semantically incorrect, as such zone/area is not protected, likely it is guarded though. 'special_economic_zone' has self-explanatory semantic meaning, no need for 2 tags of which one has code values, which I consider horrible. --JoscTr (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Good idea and well-documented. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. a much more user-friendly approach than a number that you first need to look up. --Hannes Röst (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)