[Tagging] geology taggin?

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 21:16:06 GMT 2010

2010/11/16 Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
> No, surface was meant (and is in fact used widely) to describe the surface
> material of something, being it a highway, beach or whatever. There is e.g.
> *no* problem to describe the surface of e.g. natural=beach with that tag.

do you see the difference between surface and landcover as described
later in this thread?

> I've never argued to use surface for trees, but the well established
> natural=wood / landuse=forest.

well established for what? landuse=forest is for managed forests,
natural=wood (strange enough it is not for woodland) is for
"unmanaged" natural forests. For all other trees there are currently
no tags, besides mapping them one by one.

> Reading your new proposal page, I only see a vague definition that is in
> direct conflict with landuse and natural and therefore will confuse mappers
> how to tag things.

How can "physical landcover" be in conflict with landuse? Did you read
the proposal? Natural is IMHO an ideal example of a tag to diffuse
clarity and create confusion, because it is a mix of all sorts of

> It remains unclear under which circumstances someone
> should use landcover, landuse and/or natural.

I guess you didn't read the proposal. It states that you are
encouraged to combine them, because they are orthogonal.


More information about the Tagging mailing list