[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jul 2 22:29:00 BST 2012

2012/7/2 Martin Vonwald (Imagic) <imagic.osm at gmail.com>:
> Am 02.07.2012 um 22:09 schrieb sabas88 <sabas88 at gmail.com>:
>> I'd opt for landcover system.
> +1 for landcover. IMO the tag natural should not be used for areas (yes, I know, currently it is used often for areas).

I think it is fine to use natural for areas (the very most of over 8
million features tagged with natural=* are actually areas:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/natural ), but I'd like to see
it used for topographical features (most of all features that are
currently tagged with natural are indeed topographical features, e.g.
lakes, bays, woods, springs, beaches, ...)
I am opposing the interpretation of "natural" as a class in contrast
to "man_made", as it is not a sufficient distinction (too few main
classes, hence it leads to exceptions and inconsequencies (everything
natural besides x, y and foo, and bar, and z, and w, and t and...
which are covered by the keys ...)).



More information about the Tagging mailing list