[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 15:33:04 GMT 2011

On 30 January 2011 01:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Come on, it "was" never expanded, you would like it to be expanded.

You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see
landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people.

As for expansion, you really should spend 2 seconds looking into
things instead of sticking your head in the proverbial sand...


"(cur | prev)  2010-07-20T00:30:54 RichardMann (Talk | contribs)
(1,883 bytes) (Post tag-list discussion tidy up) (undo)"

> Don't know. I don't actually care for beaches if they are tagged
> surface or landcover, but I think that it would be easier for
> everybody to just use one key instead of 2, and I think that landcover
> is generally better suited for all kinds of values and surface is not
> yet established so it wouldn't be a big "change".

Why is it better suited?

You haven't given a single reason as to why it's better, you just keep
saying it is as if you are hoping that it will make it true some how.

If anything surface has been in use for a very long time, why can't we
just use it?

> this is not only about rendering, it is about the meaning. If you
> wanted to make a map of a golf course, you would maybe want to
> distinguish between casual sand and a bunker.

In either case you could still tag them both as surface=sand and they
could render without knowing anything about the other tags being used,
which seems to be a good thing imho...

> to unify the mapping, to make the data interpretable. This has in
> second place to do with rendering and is not "tagging for the
> renderer". Any kind of data evaluation should be possible.

Sure, but the primary reason a lot of people tag stuff is to have it
show up on a map, not so they can do statistical analysis or whatever
weird thing might be a very distant second.

More information about the Tagging mailing list