M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist@...> writes: > 2011/1/27 Stephen Hope <slhope <at> gmail.com>: > > 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). > Martin As Martin writes, this could be tagged with something like loose_rock. It is probably best to get a proposal on this at the same time as natural=bare_rock. If we have a tag of loose_rock, maybe we also should have solid_rock? And then bare_rock become redundant for tagging of land cover.
To tag landscape-features, maybe natural=bare_rock is to general. Maybe it should be natural=mountainous, natural=rock_pillar, natural=rock_outcrop, natural=limestone_field and such more distinct tags? On the other hand; in any given area there is only one of the distinct features. With some local knowledge, natural=bare_rock could be understood. /Johan Jönsson _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
