[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 12:49:16 GMT 2011
On 29 January 2011 22:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/1/29 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
>> On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them
>>> landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles)
>> Why bother with landcover=* when we have natural=* and surface=* already?
> why explain the same issues a hundred times? You can find the answer
> in the ML archive and in the wiki.
and just like previous threads I'm still to be convinced we need
landcover=*, I just don't see the point of introducing a 3rd type that
only serves to confuse things.
More information about the Tagging