Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2011-01-27 Thread Andrew Harvey
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2011-01-27 Thread Johan Jönsson
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.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2011-01-27 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2011-01-27 Thread Stephen Hope
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.