[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

Johan Jönsson johan.j at goteborg.cc
Thu Jan 27 20:43:48 GMT 2011


Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at ...> writes:
> Is a distinction made between areas which are basically one really
> large rock stuck to the ground, and areas where there are lots of body
> to head sized rocks (without knowing what is underneath)? Also some
> areas would likely be a combination of the two.
> 
My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for
fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be
splintered and jagged.

The first proposal intended to span all kinds of stone surfaces, I changed that.
I took a look at [[IOFmapping#Rock_and_boulders]] and got convinced to separate
the solid bare_rock.
In the discussion it was argued that natural=scree could be used for rough stony
grounds, that maybe not the case as scree have a limited definition meaning a
certain mountain slope filled with rubble, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scree
Scree on wikipedia]].

There is a definition on
[http://etc-lusi.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes/Pictures?CLCcategory=3/3.3/3.3.2&CLCtitle=Bare%20rocks
"European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information"] that is like the
first proposal, encompassing all kinds of areas with visible rock.

/Johan Jönsson







More information about the Tagging mailing list