[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

[Johan Jönsson]

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at ...> writes:
> 2011/1/27 Stephen Hope <slhope <at> gmail.com>:
> > It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered
> > with loose rock is also scree.  But loose rock on flat ground never
> > is.  I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid.
> 
> OK, so IMHO this would be right to remain in natural: it is more about
> the geographical situation then about the material (or better: it is
> not only about the material, but it is a type of "landscape"-feature).
> Opposed to this, "loose_rock" would be a landcover-feature (and
> probably implied by scree).
> Martin
As Martin writes, this could be tagged with something like loose_rock.
It is probably best to get a proposal on this at the same time as
natural=bare_rock.
If we have a tag of loose_rock, maybe we also should have solid_rock? 
And then bare_rock become redundant for tagging of land cover.

To tag landscape-features, maybe natural=bare_rock is to general. 
Maybe it should be natural=mountainous, natural=rock_pillar, 
natural=rock_outcrop, natural=limestone_field and such more distinct tags?
On the other hand; in any given area there is only one of the distinct features.
With some local knowledge, natural=bare_rock could be understood.

/Johan Jönsson