[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Jan 30 11:13:31 GMT 2011

2011/1/29 Johan Jönsson <johan.j at goteborg.cc>:

> surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other
> good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock,
> instead of leaving it blank.

how would you map a peak that is not covered by vegetation? IMHO
natural is not a landcover-tag but it is a geographical tag.
natural=peak, surface=bare_rock.

> Regarding the third concept of geological landmarks. To get a more lively map
> with nice landmarks there probably should be more tags like hillock,
> stone_pillar, monolith, cliff, plateau, hill. The more detailed tagging on these
> hills could use natural=bare_rock, natural=cliff, natural=scree for the parts
> with rock surfaces and other tags for the vegetated parts.

IMHO cliff (vertical stone wall) and scree (field of loose pebbles and
rocks in the mountains) are not the same category as "bare_rock".

> In the same way as the old abutters tag is the description of the terrain useful
> to orient yourself: there are trees over there, there are bare_rock over here.

and there are power lines over there, and there is a rain deer farm
over there, and there is a golf course over there, and there is the
ocean over there, and the moon is above. I can't follow this "over
there"-logics. Everything can be used for orientation, but that
doesn't imply that all these features belong to the same category.


More information about the Tagging mailing list