[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 13:05:09 GMT 2011

2011/1/29 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
> 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.

basically the idea was that natural could be restricted to
geographical features. This is in line with most of the tags there.
coastline, cliff, spring, bay, cave_entrance, beach, volcano, peak and
many more are all geographical features. They should not be mixed up
with physical landcoverage like "mud".

So there is no overlapping of landcover and natural. Surface could be
used in many cases instead of landcover, but according to the wiki it
is: "The surface=* tag is one of the additional properties tags, which
can be used to supply extra information about the surface in
conjunction with highway ways (different classifications of roads and
also footways), areas (e.g. landuse=*, natural=*), and other features.

So it is meant to be "additional" what landcover is not (can be used
exclusively). Landcover seems to the logical counterpart of landuse,
it is a widely used term and will facilitate understanding the tagging
scheme. Surface=paved does make sense, landcover=paved doesn't IMHO.
surface=trees doesn't sound well. landcover=trees is a perfect

If you look at the documented surface values:

you will find that all of those are about the surface of highways, you
can also see this by looking at the pictures. Landcover would be used
differently and would mainly have different values.


More information about the Tagging mailing list