Talk:MPAARE

jens 14:00, 10 January 2009 (CET)

The problem I have is, why do we need an extra information object when the attributes catmpa and catiuc given there can easily be placed here? The only difference are DRVAL1/2 and both are doubtful.

Is it thinkable to add catmpa and catiuc here and to replace mpadet by rcmdts; reglts; resdes; as information objects?

See discussions at Talk:Mpapen and mpadet.

--Cwinn72 13:34, 27 January 2009 (CET)

I have been confused as to why MPAARE is listed here. The reason that the area and supplemental attributes were split is to accommodate mariners and the ENC. The original plan was to submit the MPAARE feature to the hydro FCD. This would ensure that the limits of these areas would be included in S-101 ENCs. The supplemental information, i.e. IUCN category, etc, would be proposed to an alternative register for use in other product specifications. At the time of our proposal, the nautical pubs looked like the most likely register. This is the reason for the separate information objects.

I'll defer to Craig who is the in-house expert on MPA's. Tom Loeper 12 March 09.