[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

Glom johan.j at goteborg.cc
Tue Jul 3 18:14:23 BST 2012

The key isn´t perfect as previous years discussion have showed, it would be
better if there where a recognized key for landcover. The key "natural"
suggests that it is a topographic feature, and in some places it could be
so.  The key "landcover" isn´t the best name for a key either as this tag
suggests an area without any cover, that is the bare rock.

The value "bare_rock" used to tag areas of uncovered badrock does have some
The obvious one being the shorter "rock", that word do have too many similar
uses for tagging: a single large boulder, a underwater hazard, a small
skerrie in the sea, a larger steep-faced isle or even similar steepfaced
hills on land. all of these being typical easily identified geogrphic
objects usually tagged using the key "natural".

Another good alternative would be the value "bedrock", as it makes clear
that it is a solid surface of rock, in fact the bedrock, showing up. My
initial trouble with this was that it might ruin future attempts to mmake
geological tags for the bedrock, even when the bedrock isn´t visible.

View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-RFC-natural-bare-rock-tp5714783p5714940.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Tagging mailing list