[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
