Ok, so I guess it comes down to if protect_class is meant to be strictly applying based on IUCN category, or if it's just for IUCN-like categories that can apply even without a published IUCN.

A bit like if sac_scale applies only where we have an "official" SAC scale, or can it apply based on sac_scale like values, or if mtb:scale:imba only applies based an IMBA scale. In the latter two it's widespread to apply them without an assigned category or scale by choosing the "like" category.

I'm tempted to say protect_class should be the same, in that you can use 1-4 even without an IUCN and instead use iucn_level as being only for those officially assigned.

I'm not too fussed either way though, for me the protection_title is sufficient, but it would still be nice to have a globally consisnent way to say this areas is for wildlife/fauna protection, ie. "Habitat/Species Management Area" ie. protect_class=4.

Do you think we should then change all Wildlife Protection Area's to protect_class=7 given they are all 4 currently?