Tod Fitch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, September 10, 2013 2:16 pm, John Eldredge wrote: > > On 09/10/2013 04:06 PM, Dominik George wrote: > >> Why? If there is a difference, then there is a difference. > >> > >> BTW, mind fix your From name, Mrs. or Mr. Gmail? > >> > >> -nik > >> > >> > >> > >> Gmail <[email protected]> schrieb: > >> > >> In a geo database, tundra alone must be sufficient, don't you > think > >> ? > >> > >> > >> > >> Tod Fitch <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> > >> I'd like to start adding some vegetation information to an > area > >> in the mountains of Southern California. There are a couple > of > >> situations that I am uncertain of the correct tagging of > >> treeless > >> areas. For this query though I'll restrict it to areas at > or > >> above timberline. > >> > >> I believe the wide spread term to describe the ecosystem is > >> "alpine tundra". Certainly the Wikipedia article on > southern > >> California mountains refers to it that way: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_montane_chaparral > >> > >> And the Wikipedia page regarding alpine tundra affirms it: > >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_tundra > >> > >> But the closest looking tag I see at > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural seems to be > >> natural=fell > >> > >> Fell appears to be a UK centric description for a subset of > >> alpine tundra:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell > >> > >> There are currently no natural=*alpine* tags and only a > handful > >> natural=tundra, the use of which seems to cover both alpine > >> tundra > >> (mountains in Colorado) and arctic tundra (northern Canada, > >> etc.) > >> without a way to distinguish which of the two are meant. > >> > >> What are the thoughts of extending the natural tag to > include: > >> natural=arctic_tundra, natural=alpine_tundra and, possibly, > >> natural=antarctic_tundra > >> > >> With descriptions per Wikipedia: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_tundra > >> > > How would you tag tundra which was both alpine and arctic/antarctic > (in > > other words, on a mountain in either the Arctic or Antarctic > regions)? > > I know that Alaska and Antarctica both have some extensive mountain > > ranges, as do parts of Scandinavia. As far as I know, the Arctic > > regions of both Canada and Siberia are relatively flat. > > > > Wikipedia indicates that the arctic tundra has moisture and the soil > is > over permafrost whereas alpine tundra has well drained soils. > > I haven't been to an area with arctic tundra so I can't say. I suppose > if > the vegetation looks the same on the mountain slopes it could be > tagged as > arctic tundra. If the ecosystem looks more like alpine tundra found in > temperate latitudes then it could be tagged as that. > > Regards, > Tod > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I have visited areas of alpine tundra, in the Swiss Alps, that had soil conditions that I would describe as permafrost. The surface thawed during summer days, and was soupy mud. Underneath this mud was a rock-hard frozen layer. In shaded areas, the surface was still frozen, suggesting that the thawed areas probably refroze every night. -- John F. Eldredge -- [email protected] "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
