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

2012-07-03 Thread Glom
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
suggests an area without any cover, that is the bare rock.

The value bare_rock used to tag areas of uncovered badrock does have some
competition. 
The obvious one being the shorter rock, that word do have too many similar
uses for tagging: a single large boulder, a underwater hazard, a small
skerrie in the sea, a larger steep-faced isle or even similar steepfaced
hills on land. all of these being typical easily identified geogrphic
objects usually tagged using the key natural.

Another good alternative would be the value bedrock, as it makes clear
that it is a solid surface of rock, in fact the bedrock, showing up. My
initial trouble with this was that it might ruin future attempts to mmake
geological tags for the bedrock, even when the bedrock isn´t visible.

--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-RFC-natural-bare-rock-tp5714783p5714940.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2012-07-02 Thread Johan Jönsson
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.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2012-07-02 Thread sabas88
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 approved.

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock



There are some proposals, it's not a very clear situation (bare_rock, rock,
bedrock), no way to tag the typology of the rock..
I tagged bare_rock both with natural and landcover key to be sure...

I'd opt for landcover system.

Regards,
Stefano


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2012-07-02 Thread Martin Vonwald (Imagic)
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2012-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
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 natural for areas (the very most of over 8
million features tagged with natural=* are actually areas:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/natural ), but I'd like to see
it used for topographical features (most of all features that are
currently tagged with natural are indeed topographical features, e.g.
lakes, bays, woods, springs, beaches, ...)
I am opposing the interpretation of natural as a class in contrast
to man_made, as it is not a sufficient distinction (too few main
classes, hence it leads to exceptions and inconsequencies (everything
natural besides x, y and foo, and bar, and z, and w, and t and...
which are covered by the keys ...)).

cheers,
Martin

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-31 Thread john
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 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 on golf
courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s
of km of an actual beach...

 Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock,
 I am not sure how people are supposed to know that.
 And what to use for loose rock.

Real world examples off the top of my head.

Ayres Rock/Uluru is supposed to be 1 big lump of sand stone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Uluru_%28Helicopter_view%29-crop.jpg

You also have the cores of what were volcanoes, the outer dirt layer
has eroded away completely over time
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PBYeriHIc4k/SfT3VgN4yvI/A0A/GKwEHYMKEcI/P1010343.JPG

Just to throw a spanner in the works, both of which are natural formations :)

As for loose rock, isn't that scree?

___
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

2011-01-31 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-31 Thread Johan Jönsson
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 and other tags if it is not 
a natural rock surface you are tagging.

As I concluded yesterday, this proposal would be better with
landcover=bare_rock, 
then it could be used on every land cover consisting of a bare rock surface 
without confusion on the natural-key.

/Johan Jönsson





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-31 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 natural=bare_rock
 you can use landuse=quarry and other tags if it is not
 a natural rock surface you are tagging.

 As I concluded yesterday, this proposal would be better with
 landcover=bare_rock,
 then it could be used on every land cover consisting of a bare rock surface
 without confusion on the natural-key.


I think this whole natural discussion/criteria is not useful at all,
because the rock itself is natural also in a quarry. natural in the
sense of not-modified by humans is not a good criteria for tagging in
general IMHO --- btw.: humans are also natural.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 also bars, restaurants, parking space,
 paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this
 polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more
 generalizing while surface shouldn't.

 I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those
 other locations have their own POI or polygon?


 yes, they would result in overlapping polygons with different surface
 values. You could not tell which one is valid.

 That makes no sense, assuming good faith, why would someone
 intentionally upload an invalid polygon? (other than by accident)


broken by design...
There won't be an invalid polygon, there would be 2 valid but
contradicting polygons.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread John Smith
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.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 top of
 the larger ones.


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 world, you would need endless processing if you wanted to
estimate the area covered by sand: for every area tagged surface=sand
you would only know it's real extension after subtracting all other
polygons with different surface-values (or with an assumed different
surface).

You also seem to reduce this to a rendering problem.

There can also be cases where a bigger polygon overlaps for a small
part a smaller polygon.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread John Smith
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 world, you would need endless processing if you wanted to
 estimate the area covered by sand: for every area tagged surface=sand
 you would only know it's real extension after subtracting all other
 polygons with different surface-values (or with an assumed different
 surface).

 You also seem to reduce this to a rendering problem.

 There can also be cases where a bigger polygon overlaps for a small
 part a smaller polygon.

None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information
however you like, however in general it is a rendering problem and the
way that was solved was to put the smaller polygons on top of the
bigger ones which seems like a reasonable way to handle things to me.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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, that don't have this surface, they should be
excluded (multipolygon).

This is different to e.g. landuse, where we map the predominant
landuse (i.e. there can be small areas within with different landuse).
This behaviour should IMHO not apply to surface.

If there are different polygons tagged with different surface values
that cover the same area, you will have to interpret a non-clear
situation, that's why we should try to avoid these situations. In case
of the beach you could tag the beach-way as natural=beach, name=xy
then create a multipolygon, insert the non-sand surfaces as inners and
tag the relation with surface=sand. In my reading you wouldn't have to
exclude them with landcover (or say beach:type) sand, as these are
less explicit then surface (they implicitly take a more generalized
view).

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread Johan Jönsson
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 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 natural=scree suggest a particulate definition of 
a slope with rubble of different sizes. More distinct tags needed or a general
tag.

There have been a vivid discussion, one idea is to use natural=* for special
named features, like scree, but use a land_cover=* for general tagging of the
nature of an area.

/Johan Jönsson





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread Johan Jönsson
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 natural=scree suggest a particulate definition of 
 a slope with rubble of different sizes. More distinct tags needed or a general
 tag.
 
 There have been a vivid discussion, one idea is to use natural=* for special
 named features, like scree, but use a land_cover=* for general tagging of the
 nature of an area.
 
I have some concerns on my proposal.
I am taking the proposal back to status=draft if that is OK.

It should be better off as a landcover=bare_rock instead, 
but that key is not really accepted.

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.

Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock, 
I am not sure how people are supposed to know that. 
And what to use for loose rock.

/Johan Jönsson





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-30 Thread John Smith
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 on golf
courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s
of km of an actual beach...

 Another concern is that the tag is only supposed to be used for solid rock,
 I am not sure how people are supposed to know that.
 And what to use for loose rock.

Real world examples off the top of my head.

Ayres Rock/Uluru is supposed to be 1 big lump of sand stone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Uluru_%28Helicopter_view%29-crop.jpg

You also have the cores of what were volcanoes, the outer dirt layer
has eroded away completely over time
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PBYeriHIc4k/SfT3VgN4yvI/A0A/GKwEHYMKEcI/P1010343.JPG

Just to throw a spanner in the works, both of which are natural formations :)

As for loose rock, isn't that scree?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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)
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg

 Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already?


why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer
in the ML archive and in the wiki.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread Ulf Lamping

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 landcover=pebbles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_Retreating_from_Pebbles.jpg


Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already?


why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer
in the ML archive and in the wiki.


If you advertise your own proposal(s) a hundred times here, then please 
also mention the (widely used) alternatives.


Regards, ULFL

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 features. This is in line with most of the tags there.
coastline, cliff, spring, bay, cave_entrance, beach, volcano, peak and
many more are all geographical features. They should not be mixed up
with physical landcoverage like mud.

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 used to supply extra information about the surface in
conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and
also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features.


So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used
exclusively). Landcover seems to the logical counterpart of landuse,
it is a widely used term and will facilitate understanding the tagging
scheme. Surface=paved does make sense, landcover=paved doesn't IMHO.
surface=trees doesn't sound well. landcover=trees is a perfect
statement.

If you look at the documented surface values:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface

you will find that all of those are about the surface of highways, you
can also see this by looking at the pictures. Landcover would be used
differently and would mainly have different values.

Cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread John Smith
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 used to supply extra information about the surface in
 conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and
 also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features.
 

 So it is meant to be additional what landcover is not (can be used

That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded
beyond highways for things like golf bunkers, eg surface=sand because
natural=beach wasn't suitable.

Also the Map Features page lists natural=mud and surface=mud, but
apart from mud flats (natural=wetland + wetland=mud), where would you
actually use landcover=mud?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 than highways.  If you look at
 the actual values you can see that they are nearly completely
 highway-values:


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.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread John Smith
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 example?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread John Smith
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.

 it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well
 established feature that now would require intense changes of tags.

I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach,
surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one.

 there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs.
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course

How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course
rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than
trying to render every possible use of sand.

 obvious. Generally we call this tagging for the renderers and we don't
 have to discuss about it.

This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for
renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the
Map Features page and tagging presets other wise?

 I don't know if there is places on earth you would tag like this.
 Probably not. But neither would I tag natural=mud. For mud flats I'm
 not sure. I don't live at a tidal coast so I don't have to bother.
 Looking at the actual used values there is tidal_flat and saltmarsh
 which could be suitable as well (as I said, I don't know).

There is one near me and that's pretty much what I did, tagged it as a
natural=wetland since it had more than just mud as the primary
feature.

 mud will probably mostly be surface=ground on highways.

or dirt or  or at least for the most part I'd hope the road wasn't muddy :)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 might be good
reasons _not_ to realize it in order to prove your statement That
definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded beyond
highways for things like golf bunkers ?

Come on, it was never expanded, you would like it to be expanded.


 it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a well
 established feature that now would require intense changes of tags.

 I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach,
 surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one.


Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged
surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for
everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover
is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not
yet established so it wouldn't be a big change.


 there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs.
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Golf_course

 How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course
 rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than
 trying to render every possible use of sand.


this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you
wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to
distinguish between casual sand and a bunker.


 This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for
 renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the
 Map Features page and tagging presets other wise?


to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in
second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the
renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible.


cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread John Smith
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 really should spend 2 seconds looking into
things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history

Specifically:

(cur | prev)  2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs)
(1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo)

 Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged
 surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for
 everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover
 is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not
 yet established so it wouldn't be a big change.

Why is it better suited?

You haven't given a single reason as to why it's better, you just keep
saying it is as if you are hoping that it will make it true some how.

If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we
just use it?

 this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you
 wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to
 distinguish between casual sand and a bunker.

In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they
could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used,
which seems to be a good thing imho...

 to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in
 second place to do with rendering and is not tagging for the
 renderer. Any kind of data evaluation should be possible.

Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it
show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever
weird thing might be a very distant second.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 that sand is a good
value for surface, but at the same time there could be
landcover=trees.


 things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand...
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:surfaceaction=history
 Specifically:
 (cur | prev)  2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs)
 (1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo)


I took a look and I find this edit highly disputable, and indeed some
of it in the actual state of the page says now the opposite ;-)

e.g. default for roads. I think that someone must be able to tell
from the data if a road is paved or not without further analysis, but
with this definition you must know for every part of the world what is
considered a road.


 If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we
 just use it?


we could. What are the other objects already tagged with surface? What
are the suggested values for surface on other objects then ways?

I neither find this in the wiki nor significantly in the data. I could
also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well).
Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense.

This has also effects for the users of the data. If you import the
data into specialized database, with only surface as key, you would
have one column less. This can be either good or bad (less columns
with the same implications would be preferably, while you would have
more effort to filter what you don't need).

...
 In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they
 could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used,
 which seems to be a good thing imho...


yes, for rendering you can use whatever key-name, I'd like to think
which properties are better described. For vegetation landcover seems
more appropriate while surface seems better for material.

...
 Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it
 show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever


at a certain point, you will not be able to show everything on every
map, but there will be maps that show what you want, (probably maps
made by you). Which information/aspect and the logics how it is
diplayed are up to the makers of the rulesheet.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread John Smith
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 plenty of other tree options already, why do we need yet
another one?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread John Smith
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 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 also bars, restaurants, parking space,
 paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this
 polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more
 generalizing while surface shouldn't.

I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those
other locations have their own POI or polygon?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-29 Thread Johan Jönsson
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, rather than a tag by itself.
 
 The second is a bit odd, but would imply an area that is not used for
 anything because it's rocky - perhaps some kind of barren wasteland.
 
 The third describes a geological feature that is useful as a landmark.
 There are trees over there, there are rocks over here.
 
I agree, and further more, the word rock can mean a lot of things like skerries
and boulders. That is why the proposal is on bare_rock instead. An alternative
could be bedrock.

Regarding the first concept you mention: the ground in a feature. It could be of
bare_rock, in Sweden we have some cliff bathes that is some kind of beach with a
rock surface. I guess there could be roads on bare rock on some places in the
world, where the surface tag could come in use. Beach and road with subtag of
surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other
good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock,
instead of leaving it blank.

Regarding the second concept: landuse=rock that could be landuse=quarry
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quarry

Regarding the third concept of geological landmarks. To get a more lively map
with nice landmarks there probably should be more tags like hillock,
stone_pillar, monolith, cliff, plateau, hill. The more detailed tagging on these
hills could use natural=bare_rock, natural=cliff, natural=scree for the parts
with rock surfaces and other tags for the vegetated parts. 
In the same way as the old abutters tag is the description of the terrain useful
to orient yourself: there are trees over there, there are bare_rock over here.

/Johan Jönsson





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-28 Thread Andrew Harvey
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 large stone/rock surface in the ground, even when jagged, and not
for loose rocks.

I support this proposal then.

 The first proposal intended to span all kinds of stone surfaces, I changed 
 that.
 I took a look at [[IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders]] and got convinced to 
 separate
 the solid bare_rock.
 In the discussion it was argued that natural=scree could be used for rough 
 stony
 grounds, that maybe not the case as scree have a limited definition meaning a
 certain mountain slope filled with rubble, 
 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scree
 Scree on wikipedia]].

 There is a definition on
 [http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2CLCtitle=Bare%20rocks
 European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information] that is like the
 first proposal, encompassing all kinds of areas with visible rock.

 /Johan Jönsson

I also think it makes sense to separate the solid bare_rock.


On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
 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.  But loose rock on flat ground never
 is.  I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid.

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 not really at the base of a
cliff. They are mostly stable rocks, but usually enough to walk on if
you are careful, but can move. What tag should I use for this? I think
it is different to scree. Thanks.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-28 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 hillside covered
 with loose rock is also scree.  But loose rock on flat ground never
 is.  I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid.


OK, so IMHO this would be right to remain in natural: it is more about
the geographical situation then about the material (or better: it is
not only about the material, but it is a type of landscape-feature).
Opposed to this, loose_rock would be a landcover-feature (and
probably implied by scree).

Cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-28 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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 not really at the base of a
 cliff. They are mostly stable rocks, but usually enough to walk on if
 you are careful, but can move. What tag should I use for this? I think
 it is different to scree. Thanks.


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

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2011-01-28 Thread John Smith
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 with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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
areas would likely be a combination of the two.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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.
 
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.

The first proposal intended to span all kinds of stone surfaces, I changed that.
I took a look at [[IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders]] and got convinced to separate
the solid bare_rock.
In the discussion it was argued that natural=scree could be used for rough stony
grounds, that maybe not the case as scree have a limited definition meaning a
certain mountain slope filled with rubble, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scree
Scree on wikipedia]].

There is a definition on
[http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2CLCtitle=Bare%20rocks
European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information] that is like the
first proposal, encompassing all kinds of areas with visible rock.

/Johan Jönsson





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 (natural=scree)

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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.  But loose rock on flat ground never
is.  I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid.


Stephen

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2011-01-26 Thread Johan Jönsson
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

2011-01-26 Thread 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 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

2011-01-26 Thread M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
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

2011-01-26 Thread john
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

2011-01-26 Thread John Smith
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