Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
The key isn´t perfect as previous years discussion have showed, it would be better if there where a recognized key for landcover. The key natural suggests that it is a topographic feature, and in some places it could be so. The key landcover isn´t the best name for a key either as this tag suggests an area without any cover, that is the bare rock. The value bare_rock used to tag areas of uncovered badrock does have some competition. The obvious one being the shorter rock, that word do have too many similar uses for tagging: a single large boulder, a underwater hazard, a small skerrie in the sea, a larger steep-faced isle or even similar steepfaced hills on land. all of these being typical easily identified geogrphic objects usually tagged using the key natural. Another good alternative would be the value bedrock, as it makes clear that it is a solid surface of rock, in fact the bedrock, showing up. My initial trouble with this was that it might ruin future attempts to mmake geological tags for the bedrock, even when the bedrock isn´t visible. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-RFC-natural-bare-rock-tp5714783p5714940.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
This is an old proposal that have been discussed before. It seem to be in use according to tag watch, so I have been urged to make this official. There are also similar tags in use and others proposed but that doesn´t mean this one could be approved. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2012/7/2 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc This is an old proposal that have been discussed before. It seem to be in use according to tag watch, so I have been urged to make this official. There are also similar tags in use and others proposed but that doesn´t mean this one could be approved. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock There are some proposals, it's not a very clear situation (bare_rock, rock, bedrock), no way to tag the typology of the rock.. I tagged bare_rock both with natural and landcover key to be sure... I'd opt for landcover system. Regards, Stefano ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Am 02.07.2012 um 22:09 schrieb sabas88 saba...@gmail.com: I'd opt for landcover system. +1 for landcover. IMO the tag natural should not be used for areas (yes, I know, currently it is used often for areas). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2012/7/2 Martin Vonwald (Imagic) imagic@gmail.com: Am 02.07.2012 um 22:09 schrieb sabas88 saba...@gmail.com: I'd opt for landcover system. +1 for landcover. IMO the tag natural should not be used for areas (yes, I know, currently it is used often for areas). I think it is fine to use natural for areas (the very most of over 8 million features tagged with natural=* are actually areas: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/natural ), but I'd like to see it used for topographical features (most of all features that are currently tagged with natural are indeed topographical features, e.g. lakes, bays, woods, springs, beaches, ...) I am opposing the interpretation of natural as a class in contrast to man_made, as it is not a sufficient distinction (too few main classes, hence it leads to exceptions and inconsequencies (everything natural besides x, y and foo, and bar, and z, and w, and t and... which are covered by the keys ...)). cheers, Martin cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
You also have edge cases, such as a solid rock surface, some of which has broken up into loose rock. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock From :mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date :Sun Jan 30 23:20:25 America/Chicago 2011 2011/1/31 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: If used with the natural-key then it should at least be possible to use the same way as natural=wetland with subtags of wetland=.. natural=rockland :-) I started a new thread on that. Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s of km of an actual beach... Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock, I am not sure how people are supposed to know that. And what to use for loose rock. Real world examples off the top of my head. Ayres Rock/Uluru is supposed to be 1 big lump of sand stone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Uluru_%28Helicopter_view%29-crop.jpg You also have the cores of what were volcanoes, the outer dirt layer has eroded away completely over time http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PBYeriHIc4k/SfT3VgN4yvI/A0A/GKwEHYMKEcI/P1010343.JPG Just to throw a spanner in the works, both of which are natural formations :) As for loose rock, isn't that scree? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/31 j...@jfeldredge.com: You also have edge cases, such as a solid rock surface, some of which has broken up into loose rock. Yes, in natural mountaneous settings you will almost always have solid bare rock under the loose rock ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes: Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s of km of an actual beach... That is true, instead of the proposal natural=bare_rock you can use landuse=quarry and other tags if it is not a natural rock surface you are tagging. As I concluded yesterday, this proposal would be better with landcover=bare_rock, then it could be used on every land cover consisting of a bare rock surface without confusion on the natural-key. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/31 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes: Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s of km of an actual beach... That is true, instead of the proposal natural=bare_rock you can use landuse=quarry and other tags if it is not a natural rock surface you are tagging. As I concluded yesterday, this proposal would be better with landcover=bare_rock, then it could be used on every land cover consisting of a bare rock surface without confusion on the natural-key. I think this whole natural discussion/criteria is not useful at all, because the rock itself is natural also in a quarry. natural in the sense of not-modified by humans is not a good criteria for tagging in general IMHO --- btw.: humans are also natural. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand? The beach could often include also bars, restaurants, parking space, paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more generalizing while surface shouldn't. I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those other locations have their own POI or polygon? yes, they would result in overlapping polygons with different surface values. You could not tell which one is valid. That makes no sense, assuming good faith, why would someone intentionally upload an invalid polygon? (other than by accident) broken by design... There won't be an invalid polygon, there would be 2 valid but contradicting polygons. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 21:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: broken by design... There won't be an invalid polygon, there would be 2 valid but contradicting polygons. Which are sorted by smallest first usually so they render on top of the larger ones. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/30 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 30 January 2011 21:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: broken by design... There won't be an invalid polygon, there would be 2 valid but contradicting polygons. Which are sorted by smallest first usually so they render on top of the larger ones. This is a method of trying to extract useful data from an undefined state making assumptions, but it is IMHO not how we should design our data model. This would also mean that even with complete data for the whole world, you would need endless processing if you wanted to estimate the area covered by sand: for every area tagged surface=sand you would only know it's real extension after subtracting all other polygons with different surface-values (or with an assumed different surface). You also seem to reduce this to a rendering problem. There can also be cases where a bigger polygon overlaps for a small part a smaller polygon. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 21:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: This is a method of trying to extract useful data from an undefined state making assumptions, but it is IMHO not how we should design our data model. This would also mean that even with complete data for the whole world, you would need endless processing if you wanted to estimate the area covered by sand: for every area tagged surface=sand you would only know it's real extension after subtracting all other polygons with different surface-values (or with an assumed different surface). You also seem to reduce this to a rendering problem. There can also be cases where a bigger polygon overlaps for a small part a smaller polygon. None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information however you like, however in general it is a rendering problem and the way that was solved was to put the smaller polygons on top of the bigger ones which seems like a reasonable way to handle things to me. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/30 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information however you like, all of them are issues. To recall: My statement was, that a polygon tagged with surface=xy should have this surface. If there are parts inside this polygon, that don't have this surface, they should be excluded (multipolygon). This is different to e.g. landuse, where we map the predominant landuse (i.e. there can be small areas within with different landuse). This behaviour should IMHO not apply to surface. If there are different polygons tagged with different surface values that cover the same area, you will have to interpret a non-clear situation, that's why we should try to avoid these situations. In case of the beach you could tag the beach-way as natural=beach, name=xy then create a multipolygon, insert the non-sand surfaces as inners and tag the relation with surface=sand. In my reading you wouldn't have to exclude them with landcover (or say beach:type) sand, as these are less explicit then surface (they implicitly take a more generalized view). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Johan Jönsson johan.j@... writes: This is an old proposal, that have been discussed before. It lead to a rewriting and instead of natural=rock it is proposed natural=bare_rock. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock It is supposed to be a tag for land cover. A summary so far. There seem to be a need for a tag for areas of solid rock, bedrock, with visible rock surface. bare_rock could be used. It is then obvious that there also is a need for areas covered by loose rocks. The naming of the popular natural=scree suggest a particulate definition of a slope with rubble of different sizes. More distinct tags needed or a general tag. There have been a vivid discussion, one idea is to use natural=* for special named features, like scree, but use a land_cover=* for general tagging of the nature of an area. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Johan Jönsson johan.j@... writes: A summary so far. There seem to be a need for a tag for areas of solid rock, bedrock, with visible rock surface. bare_rock could be used. It is then obvious that there also is a need for areas covered by loose rocks. The naming of the popular natural=scree suggest a particulate definition of a slope with rubble of different sizes. More distinct tags needed or a general tag. There have been a vivid discussion, one idea is to use natural=* for special named features, like scree, but use a land_cover=* for general tagging of the nature of an area. I have some concerns on my proposal. I am taking the proposal back to status=draft if that is OK. It should be better off as a landcover=bare_rock instead, but that key is not really accepted. If used with the natural-key then it should at least be possible to use the same way as natural=wetland with subtags of wetland=.. natural=rockland :-) I started a new thread on that. Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock, I am not sure how people are supposed to know that. And what to use for loose rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/31 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: If used with the natural-key then it should at least be possible to use the same way as natural=wetland with subtags of wetland=.. natural=rockland :-) I started a new thread on that. Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s of km of an actual beach... Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock, I am not sure how people are supposed to know that. And what to use for loose rock. Real world examples off the top of my head. Ayres Rock/Uluru is supposed to be 1 big lump of sand stone. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Uluru_%28Helicopter_view%29-crop.jpg You also have the cores of what were volcanoes, the outer dirt layer has eroded away completely over time http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PBYeriHIc4k/SfT3VgN4yvI/A0A/GKwEHYMKEcI/P1010343.JPG Just to throw a spanner in the works, both of which are natural formations :) As for loose rock, isn't that scree? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already? why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer in the ML archive and in the wiki. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Am 29.01.2011 13:33, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/1/29 John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already? why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer in the ML archive and in the wiki. If you advertise your own proposal(s) a hundred times here, then please also mention the (widely used) alternatives. Regards, ULFL ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: and just like previous threads I'm still to be convinced we need landcover=*, I just don't see the point of introducing a 3rd type that only serves to confuse things. basically the idea was that natural could be restricted to geographical features. This is in line with most of the tags there. coastline, cliff, spring, bay, cave_entrance, beach, volcano, peak and many more are all geographical features. They should not be mixed up with physical landcoverage like mud. So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it is: The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which can be used to supply extra information about the surface in conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features. So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used exclusively). Landcover seems to the logical counterpart of landuse, it is a widely used term and will facilitate understanding the tagging scheme. Surface=paved does make sense, landcover=paved doesn't IMHO. surface=trees doesn't sound well. landcover=trees is a perfect statement. If you look at the documented surface values: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface you will find that all of those are about the surface of highways, you can also see this by looking at the pictures. Landcover would be used differently and would mainly have different values. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 29 January 2011 23:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it is: The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which can be used to supply extra information about the surface in conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features. So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways for things like golf bunkers, eg surface=sand because natural=beach wasn't suitable. Also the Map Features page lists natural=mud and surface=mud, but apart from mud flats (natural=wetland + wetland=mud), where would you actually use landcover=mud? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see surface used for something different than highways. If you look at the actual values you can see that they are nearly completely highway-values: also from a data consuming e.g. rendering point of view I see more disadvantage then advantage to not separate landcover as a feature from surface as an attribute to highways. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 00:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: also from a data consuming e.g. rendering point of view I see more disadvantage then advantage to not separate landcover as a feature from surface as an attribute to highways. Can you expand upon that with a less vague example? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 That was the follow up etc, I can't find the original thread, however it would have been about the same time. it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well established feature that now would require intense changes of tags. I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach, surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one. there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than trying to render every possible use of sand. obvious. Generally we call this tagging for the renderers and we don't have to discuss about it. This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the Map Features page and tagging presets other wise? I don't know if there is places on earth you would tag like this. Probably not. But neither would I tag natural=mud. For mud flats I'm not sure. I don't live at a tidal coast so I don't have to bother. Looking at the actual used values there is tidal_flat and saltmarsh which could be suitable as well (as I said, I don't know). There is one near me and that's pretty much what I did, tagged it as a natural=wetland since it had more than just mud as the primary feature. mud will probably mostly be surface=ground on highways. or dirt or or at least for the most part I'd hope the road wasn't muddy :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873 you are pointing me to an open ticket for which there might be good reasons _not_ to realize it in order to prove your statement That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond highways for things like golf bunkers ? Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded. it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well established feature that now would require intense changes of tags. I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach, surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one. Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not yet established so it wouldn't be a big change. there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than trying to render every possible use of sand. this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to distinguish between casual sand and a bunker. This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the Map Features page and tagging presets other wise? to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 01:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded. You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people. As for expansion, you really should spend 2 seconds looking into things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history Specifically: (cur | prev) 2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs) (1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo) Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not yet established so it wouldn't be a big change. Why is it better suited? You haven't given a single reason as to why it's better, you just keep saying it is as if you are hoping that it will make it true some how. If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we just use it? this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to distinguish between casual sand and a bunker. In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used, which seems to be a good thing imho... to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible. Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever weird thing might be a very distant second. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/29 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people. It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good value for surface, but at the same time there could be landcover=trees. things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history Specifically: (cur | prev) 2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs) (1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo) I took a look and I find this edit highly disputable, and indeed some of it in the actual state of the page says now the opposite ;-) e.g. default for roads. I think that someone must be able to tell from the data if a road is paved or not without further analysis, but with this definition you must know for every part of the world what is considered a road. If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we just use it? we could. What are the other objects already tagged with surface? What are the suggested values for surface on other objects then ways? I neither find this in the wiki nor significantly in the data. I could also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well). Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense. This has also effects for the users of the data. If you import the data into specialized database, with only surface as key, you would have one column less. This can be either good or bad (less columns with the same implications would be preferably, while you would have more effort to filter what you don't need). ... In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used, which seems to be a good thing imho... yes, for rendering you can use whatever key-name, I'd like to think which properties are better described. For vegetation landcover seems more appropriate while surface seems better for material. ... Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever at a certain point, you will not be able to show everything on every map, but there will be maps that show what you want, (probably maps made by you). Which information/aspect and the logics how it is diplayed are up to the makers of the rulesheet. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 03:28, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good value for surface, but at the same time there could be landcover=trees. Isn't there plenty of other tree options already, why do we need yet another one? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: I could also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well). Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense. even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand? The beach could often include also bars, restaurants, parking space, paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more generalizing while surface shouldn't. I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those other locations have their own POI or polygon? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Steve Bennett stevagewp@... writes: IMHO there are some subtle differences between these concepts: surface=rock landuse=rock natural=rock The first to me suggests that the ground beneath some other feature, like a path or a park, is rock. surface=* is almost always a supporting tag, rather than a tag by itself. The second is a bit odd, but would imply an area that is not used for anything because it's rocky - perhaps some kind of barren wasteland. The third describes a geological feature that is useful as a landmark. There are trees over there, there are rocks over here. I agree, and further more, the word rock can mean a lot of things like skerries and boulders. That is why the proposal is on bare_rock instead. An alternative could be bedrock. Regarding the first concept you mention: the ground in a feature. It could be of bare_rock, in Sweden we have some cliff bathes that is some kind of beach with a rock surface. I guess there could be roads on bare rock on some places in the world, where the surface tag could come in use. Beach and road with subtag of surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock, instead of leaving it blank. Regarding the second concept: landuse=rock that could be landuse=quarry http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quarry Regarding the third concept of geological landmarks. To get a more lively map with nice landmarks there probably should be more tags like hillock, stone_pillar, monolith, cliff, plateau, hill. The more detailed tagging on these hills could use natural=bare_rock, natural=cliff, natural=scree for the parts with rock surfaces and other tags for the vegetated parts. In the same way as the old abutters tag is the description of the terrain useful to orient yourself: there are trees over there, there are bare_rock over here. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/28 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be splintered and jagged. Okay, so this natural=bare_rock RFC should be used where there is one very large stone/rock surface in the ground, even when jagged, and not for loose rocks. I support this proposal then. The first proposal intended to span all kinds of stone surfaces, I changed that. I took a look at [[IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders]] and got convinced to separate the solid bare_rock. In the discussion it was argued that natural=scree could be used for rough stony grounds, that maybe not the case as scree have a limited definition meaning a certain mountain slope filled with rubble, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scree Scree on wikipedia]]. There is a definition on [http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2CLCtitle=Bare%20rocks European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information] that is like the first proposal, encompassing all kinds of areas with visible rock. /Johan Jönsson I also think it makes sense to separate the solid bare_rock. On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2011 07:43, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Scree, however, usually refers to a sloping pile of loose rock at the base of a cliff, rather than being a general term for loose rocks. It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered with loose rock is also scree. But loose rock on flat ground never is. I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid. Sorry for diverting the thread if this is getting too off topic, feel free to reply using a different subject-- I saw scree on the wiki, your explanation helps. The kind of rocks I'm thinking about are on the coastline, not on a slope, and are not really at the base of a cliff. They are mostly stable rocks, but usually enough to walk on if you are careful, but can move. What tag should I use for this? I think it is different to scree. Thanks. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/27 Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com: On 28 January 2011 07:43, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Scree, however, usually refers to a sloping pile of loose rock at the base of a cliff, rather than being a general term for loose rocks. It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered with loose rock is also scree. But loose rock on flat ground never is. I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid. OK, so IMHO this would be right to remain in natural: it is more about the geographical situation then about the material (or better: it is not only about the material, but it is a type of landscape-feature). Opposed to this, loose_rock would be a landcover-feature (and probably implied by scree). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/28 Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com: Sorry for diverting the thread if this is getting too off topic, feel free to reply using a different subject-- I saw scree on the wiki, your explanation helps. The kind of rocks I'm thinking about are on the coastline, not on a slope, and are not really at the base of a cliff. They are mostly stable rocks, but usually enough to walk on if you are careful, but can move. What tag should I use for this? I think it is different to scree. Thanks. Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
I've been using natural=rocks, but I'm happy to change this if something is agreed upon. Is a distinction made between areas which are basically one really large rock stuck to the ground, and areas where there are lots of body to head sized rocks (without knowing what is underneath)? Also some areas would likely be a combination of the two. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4@... writes: Is a distinction made between areas which are basically one really large rock stuck to the ground, and areas where there are lots of body to head sized rocks (without knowing what is underneath)? Also some areas would likely be a combination of the two. My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be splintered and jagged. The first proposal intended to span all kinds of stone surfaces, I changed that. I took a look at [[IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders]] and got convinced to separate the solid bare_rock. In the discussion it was argued that natural=scree could be used for rough stony grounds, that maybe not the case as scree have a limited definition meaning a certain mountain slope filled with rubble, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scree Scree on wikipedia]]. There is a definition on [http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2CLCtitle=Bare%20rocks European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information] that is like the first proposal, encompassing all kinds of areas with visible rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/27 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be splintered and jagged. there is already the well established feature for loose rocks (natural=scree) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 28 January 2011 07:43, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Scree, however, usually refers to a sloping pile of loose rock at the base of a cliff, rather than being a general term for loose rocks. It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered with loose rock is also scree. But loose rock on flat ground never is. I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
This is an old proposal, that have been discussed before. It lead to a rewriting and instead of natural=rock it is proposed natural=bare_rock. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock It is supposed to be a tag for land cover. /Johan Jönsson --- Visa var du kommer ifrån! Skaffa en gratis e-postadress på www.goteborg.cc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: If it is a tag for landcover, why do you propose it in natural ? Natural is IMHO about geographic features like bay, spring, coastline, cliff, volcano, beach, peak and not about landcover like sand, rock, mud, ... OK, actually it is not yet strictly like this, but if we start assigning new values in this scheme it could move in this direction. You said yourself: It is supposed to be a tag for land cover. cheers, Martin PS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The landcover-scheme is interesting, haven´t heard about that. It would be nice to have a sytematic definition of physical geography characteristics to fill the white areas between the roads with. If you don´t mind I will edit the landcover-proposal and change landcover=rock to landcover=bare_rock. So regardless of the key natural/landcover, I propose the use of the tag bare_rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
2011/1/26 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: If you don´t mind I will edit the landcover-proposal and change landcover=rock to landcover=bare_rock. Fine for me, go ahead, bare_rock (or rock) is indeed missing. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
Large rock outcroppings often serve as local landmarks, just as do cliffs and beaches. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging]Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock From :mailto:joha...@goteborg.cc Date :Wed Jan 26 14:55:04 America/Chicago 2011 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: If it is a tag for landcover, why do you propose it in natural ? Natural is IMHO about geographic features like bay, spring, coastline, cliff, volcano, beach, peak and not about landcover like sand, rock, mud, ... OK, actually it is not yet strictly like this, but if we start assigning new values in this scheme it could move in this direction. You said yourself: It is supposed to be a tag for land cover. cheers, Martin PS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The landcover-scheme is interesting, haven´t heard about that. It would be nice to have a sytematic definition of physical geography characteristics to fill the white areas between the roads with. If you don´t mind I will edit the landcover-proposal and change landcover=rock to landcover=bare_rock. So regardless of the key natural/landcover, I propose the use of the tag bare_rock. /Johan Jönsson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
On 27 January 2011 06:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: PS: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover Why keep pushing this instead of just using surface=* which is widely used and accepted already? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging