[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Thu Jan 27 12:55:32 GMT 2011

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:01 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why keep pushing this instead of just using surface=* which is widely
> used and accepted already?

IMHO there are some subtle differences between these concepts:

The first to me suggests that the ground beneath some other feature,
like a path or a park, is rock. surface=* is almost always a
supporting tag, rather than a tag by itself.

The second is a bit odd, but would imply an area that is not used for
anything because it's rocky - perhaps some kind of barren wasteland.

The third describes a geological feature that is useful as a landmark.
There are trees over there, there are rocks over here.

I suspect these kinds of subtle distinctions are beyond our chaotic
and unmanaged tagging scheme though.


More information about the Tagging mailing list