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=3/3.3/3.3.2&CLCtitle=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
