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
