[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 29 17:47:58 GMT 2011

On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>> I could
>> also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well).
>> Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense.
> even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with
> natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand?
> The "beach" could often include also bars, restaurants, parking space,
> paths and other. surface on a polygon should IMHO imply that this
> polygon has this surface. In this optic the landcover-values is more
> generalizing while surface shouldn't.

I'm still failing to see the relevance here, after all wouldn't those
other locations have their own POI or polygon?

More information about the Tagging mailing list