Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

> Generally mapping bare ground beyond the specific established tags mentioned earlier is often hard without local knowledge. Imagery taken during dry season will often read like bare ground while there is often fairly extensive plant growth (like natural=grassland) that dries up and looks

Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

Generally speaking you touch a field where established tagging in OSM has gaps. A few notes on that: We have established and usually quite consistently used tags for a number of fairly specific natural or semi-natural non-vegetated surfaces - natural=bare_rock, natural=scree,

Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

sent from a phone > On 5. Jul 2020, at 11:27, Michael Montani wrote: > > What are you thoughts? Have you ever needed or thought about how to address > this issue? Which tags would you use / propose (if needed) to map ground? there is natural=bare_rock for some cases, generally I would go

[Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

Dear all, when mapping landcover and landuse in OSM, it may be possible sometimes to find areas in which ground is compacted without any vegetation like in these pictures [1],