[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 14:32:16 GMT 2011

2011/1/29 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
> That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded
> beyond highways

can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
surface used for something different than highways.  If you look at
the actual values you can see that they are nearly completely

it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a "well
established" feature that now would require intense changes of tags.

> for things like golf bunkers, eg surface=sand because
> natural=beach wasn't suitable.

there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs.

I couldn't find suggested surface values to tag golf courses in the
wiki though. If you are tagging golf courses the above linked proposal
is definitely worth taking into account.

Of course natural=beach is not suitable for golf bunkers, this is
obvious. Generally we call this tagging for the renderers and we don't
have to discuss about it.

> Also the Map Features page lists natural=mud and surface=mud, but
> apart from mud flats (natural=wetland + wetland=mud), where would you
> actually use landcover=mud?

I don't know if there is places on earth you would tag like this.
Probably not. But neither would I tag natural=mud. For mud flats I'm
not sure. I don't live at a tidal coast so I don't have to bother.
Looking at the actual used values there is tidal_flat and saltmarsh
which could be suitable as well (as I said, I don't know).

mud will probably mostly be surface=ground on highways.


More information about the Tagging mailing list