Proposal talk:Special economic zone

Discussion

Please add discussion sections as needed.

Why not use the protect_class key?

I would like to understand why do you propose creating something outside the protect_class scheme already in function. Although you say it's because it uses numbers instead of English words, I wonder if that's a good reason to create the SEZ outside something that already exists and is approved. --AntMadeira (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The protect_class=* key has not actually gone through any approval process; it has come about via de facto usage. It was invented in the early days of OSM as a way to tag protected areas defined by IUCN protected area categories 1-6. Beyond 1-6, new numbers were "invented" to cover various other types of "protected areas" causing that key to become a hodgepodge of things that are well outside the definition of a  protected area. Most of the values above protect_class=6 have rather minimal usage, and are not supported by the OSM Carto renderer. There is growing support for the elimination of the numeric protect_class=* values as they are both confusing and not well defined. Similar proposals such as Park Boundary and Named Protection Classes are working towards the full deprecation of this key. Given the issues with numeric protect_class=* values and the fact that protect_class=23 has only 5 usages compared to 50 existing usages of boundary=special_economic_zone, it is a non-disruptive change to adopt the English-language version of the tagging. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I really didn't know about all those issues and discussions, and I genuinely wanted to understand the scope of this proposal outside the protect_class=* key. So, given that that key is being deprecated, at least below number 6, why not incorporate in and make use of the Named Protection Classes proposal? --unsigned comment by AntMadeira (talk)

I strongly support the Named Protection Classes proposal, however, I don't agree that economic zones should be tagged boundary=protected_area. Adopting this proposal formally moves economic zones out of boundary=protected_area and the protect_class=* structure, narrowing the meaning of "protected area" to be closer to how it is defined (see: Protected_area on Wikipedia). By incrementally removing outliers from protect_class=*, it further simplifies Named Protection Classes proposal and makes it more likely to pass once we move it up for an RFC and a vote. We've already deprecated 5 values of that key from mutually-agreed wiki-editing by eliminating unused keys and low-use keys with obvious replacements. However, protect_class=23 did not have a ready replacement, thus this proposal was needed to create a home for the economic category. Hope that explanation didn't make your eyes bleed! --ZeLonewolf (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation. Removing economic zones from the protected areas scheme makes perfect sense for me. I believe that when Named Protection Classes is approved and refined, it will provide a better mirror to these kinds of boundaries. --AntMadeira (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)