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
