2012/8/15 David ``Smith'' <[email protected]>: > I thought we used natural=* for this kind of thing.
"natural" is not defined in a clear way IMHO, it is a mixture of different kind of features, but most of them could be called "geographical features" and if this was expressed clearly it would introduce some logics that can also help develop new tags for things for which currently there is no tag in general use. Please have a look at the main natural page to review the list of current features: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural IMHO all those would qualify for "geographical feature": arete beach bay cave_entrance cliff coastline fell glacier heath peak ridge saddle scrub spring tree_row volcano wetland maybe also stone tree wood grassland while these are not geographical features in this sense: water scree sand mud > For the different broad classes of vegetation discussed so far in this > thread, there's natural=grass/scrub/wood. Of course there's natural=water. > Other landcover types are uncommon in central Ohio so I'm not familiar with > their tagging, but I thought we had natural= values for things like sand, > bare rock, swamp, glacier, etc... how can "sand" or bare_rock be in the same category as swamp and glacier? The latter would be mud or ice if we were using the same kind of categorisation IMHO. > So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize > or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? IMHO introducing a clear logic into the current "system" would make it easier for everybody. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
