[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 14:54:33 GMT 2011
On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
That was the follow up etc, I can't find the original thread, however
it would have been about the same time.
> it is IMHO not the case that surface for landuse is a "well
> established" feature that now would require intense changes of tags.
I tag most beaches (that are sand surfaced) as natural=beach,
surface=sand etc, I doubt I'm the only one.
> there is golf=bunker which seems to perfectly fit the needs.
How much is it actually used? Is all bunkers made of sand? Of course
rendering surface=sand as a yellowish area would be a lot easier than
trying to render every possible use of sand.
> obvious. Generally we call this tagging for the renderers and we don't
> have to discuss about it.
This is where SteveB likes to suggest we are actually tagging for
renderers, at least to some extent, otherwise why bother having the
Map Features page and tagging presets other wise?
> 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).
There is one near me and that's pretty much what I did, tagged it as a
natural=wetland since it had more than just mud as the primary
> mud will probably mostly be surface=ground on highways.
or dirt or .... or at least for the most part I'd hope the road wasn't muddy :)
More information about the Tagging