On Tue, September 10, 2013 2:37 pm, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> [...]
>
> The real problem about natural=tundra is that it is a very broad
> classification. Essentially it starts at the treeline with often quite
> lush grass or woody vegetation and ends with scattered lichens. In a
> way natural=t
Why? If there is a difference, then there is a difference.
BTW, mind fix your From name, Mrs. or Mr. Gmail?
-nik
Gmail schrieb:
>In a geo database, tundra alone must be sufficient, don't you think ?
>
>
>
>Tod Fitch a écrit :
>>I'd like to start adding some vegetation information to an area
I'd like to start adding some vegetation information to an area
in the mountains of Southern California. There are a couple of
situations that I am uncertain of the correct tagging of treeless
areas. For this query though I'll restrict it to areas at or
above timberline.
I believe the wide spread
On Tue, September 10, 2013 2:16 pm, John Eldredge wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 04:06 PM, Dominik George wrote:
>> Why? If there is a difference, then there is a difference.
>>
>> BTW, mind fix your From name, Mrs. or Mr. Gmail?
>>
>> -nik
>>
>>
>>
>> Gmail schrieb:
>>
>> In a geo database, tundra al
In a geo database, tundra alone must be sufficient, don't you think ?
Tod Fitch a écrit :
>I'd like to start adding some vegetation information to an area
>in the mountains of Southern California. There are a couple of
>situations that I am uncertain of the correct tagging of treeless
>areas. F
On Tuesday 10 September 2013, Tod Fitch wrote:
> [...]
> And the Wikipedia page regarding alpine tundra affirms it:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_tundra
>
> But the closest looking tag I see at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural seems to be
> natural=fell
I had looked at th
On 09/10/2013 04:06 PM, Dominik George wrote:
Why? If there is a difference, then there is a difference.
BTW, mind fix your From name, Mrs. or Mr. Gmail?
-nik
Gmail schrieb:
In a geo database, tundra alone must be sufficient, don't you think ?
Tod Fitch a écrit :
I'd l
