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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
